Mr. Speaker, with your leave I wish to make the following statement: I regret having to announce that a train accident resulting in loss of life and quite a number of injuries occurred on the Rand yesterday afternoon.

At 3.30 p.m. on 17th February, 1969, during shunting operations on the down shunting neck on the Grosvenor side of Langlaagte Station, a shunting train, propelled by an electric unit, collided with a row of petrol tankers drawn by a steam locomotive, at the same time that a Bantu suburban passenger train was passing on the down slow line. The latter train collided with a number of the derailed tankers. Fire broke out and two petrol tankers as well as eight coaches of the suburban passenger train caught alight. Six of the coaches burnt out and two were damaged. Two tankers also burnt out.

Overhead electrical equipment, signal equipment and the track were damaged, and no trains could pass through Langlaagte. The electric shunting unit burnt out and the steam locomotive was damaged. Signal equipment and the control panel will be repaired by about 6 p.m. to-day.

Passenger trains to the West Rand have been redirected via Germiston and the Rand mineral lines, and for the Bantu areas trains have been arranged from Faraday and Westgate. Overhead electrical power had been restored on the up slow line between Langlaagte and New Canada by 5.45 p.m. Trains could travel between Johannesburg and Maraisburg via the up main line by means of diesel traction by 6.05 p.m. By 11.00 p.m. the overhead electrical power on this line had been restored. The down main line was cleared at 9.10 p.m. without overhead electrical power. At 4.22 p.m. today the overhead electrical power on this line was switched on. The down slow line was cleared at 8.15 a.m. to-day. Suburban train services were disrupted.

According to the latest information casualties are as follows: 13 Bantu passengers were killed and 157 Bantu passengers were injured, of whom 139 were still being detained in three hospitals at 7 a.m. to-day. Of the railway staff who were injured, two ticket examiners sustained serious burns, while four had minor injuries and one is suffering from shock. A board consisting of senior officials has been appointed to investigate the accident.

I want to express my deepest sympathy with the next of kin of those who died in the accident, and I trust that those who have been injured will recover soon. I also want to exprees my sincere thanks to all who rendered such spontaneous and unselfish assistance at the scene of the accident.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy of the Minister and the good wishes to those who have been injured. At the same time I want to express the hope that the board constituted will find the real cause of the accident.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kensington asked me earlier on what the financial position of these various funds was. The latest actuarial calculation is for the period ended on 31.3.’67. At that date the assets of the various funds were as follows—

The total assets of these funds therefore amount to R144,435,000. But these funds also have liabilities. I do not have the liabilities for every individual fund, but only for each province as a whole. Transvaal has a deficit of R12,777,000 on its three funds, in spite of the assets of those funds; the Cape, R43,445,000; Natal, R2,966,000; and the O.F.S., R1,498,000. Over against these the funds of South-West Africa show a surplus of R511,000.

I hope this information satisfies the hon. member for Kensington.

Mr. Speaker, through you I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his frank and straightforward statement. I am only sorry that we did not have these figures available to us during the Second Reading debate. Personally I think the situation revealed by these figures warranted a White Paper. It seems that these funds have been conducted in a manner producing losses and that the members subscribing to these funds have had very little security. To me this puts forward a strong case for a non-contributory pension scheme for the Civil Service.

Order!

Because this scheme simply does not work on account of the depreciating value of money and, furthermore, the fact that our civil servants are living longer and thereby drawing more in pensions. However, I should like to extend my thanks to the hon. the Minister for assisting us in this way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

When this Bill was debated during the Second Reading the Deputy Minister was asked by this side of the House why it was that Workmen’s Compensation was excluded from this Bill. This clause provides that when damages are assessed for loss of support as the result of a person’s death, the benefits accruing from an insurance policy, or from a friendly society or from a trade union, shall not be taken into account for that purpose. The principle is a very good one and we approve of it. It appears that an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is excluded—in other words, it must be taken into account when assessing damages. We want to know on what basis it was being excluded. It seems to me that this exclusion is on the basis that it is a statutory payment—therefore a compulsory payment and not a voluntary provision by the breadwinner concerned for the future. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister clarify this position for us to-day?

Apparently the hon. member’s objection rests on the provisions of section 40 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This section deals with the compensation payable in respect of a workman as a result of an accident causing his death. Well, the Workmen’s Compensation Act is not affected at all by this legislation. This Bill deals with damages, and damages only. It only deals with the loss of maintenance by reason of the death of the breadwinner caused by the negligence of a third party. The Workmen’s Compensation Act deals with compensation. In the case of Table Bay Stevedores v. S.A. Railways and Harbours, 1959, Appeal Judge Hoexter in interpreting section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act said—

Here we are dealing with damages and damages only. We are not dealing with compensation. A workman will get that compensation in any case. In other words, if a workman institutes an action for damages on the ground of negligence he can recover such damages besides his compensation.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

In doing so, I refer to the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading where he paid tribute to the work being done by the Film Institute. Therefore we have framed our amendment to make provision for the financial support being extended to the Film Institute. The clause will now read in this way—

I sent the hon. member for Kensington a message that I have no objection to this amendment. Although it is in fact unnecessary, I have always believed in having absolute clarity. I stated very clearly in my Second-Reading speech what the purpose of the money was, but I am quite willing to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put an agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Sir, I do not like the wording in clause 3 (a). The clause reads—

I have suggested to the hon. the Minister that this wording be altered to read “to assist in promoting the health of the people”. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that when doctors speak about “public health”, what they have in mind is the health of a section of the people in a limited sphere. Such as infections, fevers or sanitation. It is the expression that is used where the Government has delegated its powers to local authorities and where those powers are exercised by the medical officer of health for the town or city. I move as an amendment therefore—

The hon. member was so friendly as to tell me beforehand what amendment he would propose. I have gone into this matter, and personally I do not believe that it will make much difference, but the fact of the matter is, nevertheless, that the term “public health” has a specific meaning in South Africa, a meaning which does not cover as wide a sphere as is contemplated here. That is why I am prepared to accept this amendment. I think that it is an improvement and, in any case, the hon. member and I are such good friends that I take pleasure in accepting this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, may I deal now with the other paragraphs of clause 3? Generally speaking I feel that (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) are paragraphs which could easily be shortened without altering the context. It becomes difficult when you go through a long list of objects to see the difference between what is stated in the subsections and then to find what is virtually a repetition when we come to functions of the council. I wondered whether it would not be better to try and minimize the amount of reading and interpretation of this clause. I have prepared, and shown the department, the changes which I should like to see. It refers only to the wording of the clause; the content will mean the same but it will be shorter. I know it is difficult for the hon. the Minister to give a decision here now so I propose to read out my amendments and allow the Minister time to consider the matter. Perhaps in the Other Place he may think it wise to shorten the whole of clause 3. I move the following amendment in respect of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)—

1. (b) to undertake research and investigate health problems of the people and communities of the Republic;
2. (c) to collate from home and abroad scientific findings relating to the medical and allied sciences and to direct, promote and stimulate present and further research projects where deemed desirable;
3. (d) to contribute financially to existing recognized research bodies or to such bodies as may come into being and which are recognized by the council.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to look at the suggestions made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, but not with the undertaking that the clause might be shortened. It might well be that the clause is widened in scope or added to. I must confess I do not really find any difficulty reading the clause as it now stands. To me it is perfectly clear that this is a comprehensive survey of what the council’s functions will be and the object is to make it as wide as possible in scope. If one reads the first few words of the paragraphs under discussion, one finds the following—“to undertake research … to seek new knowledge … to stimulate research … to survey the broad objectives and possibilities of the medical and related sciences … to promote co-operation in research … to gather and collate scientific and technical information … to foster and contribute financially … to foster individual initiative fundamentally important to the advancement of science”. As I say, I do not find much difficulty with this but I shall nevertheless look into the matter not necessarily with a view to shortening this clause but to ensure that everything possible is included which might fall within the scope of the council.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will go through this provision. As I say, I am not married to my amendment, I merely put it forward in the spirit that it may help in the interpretation of the clause. I thank the Minister for his understanding in this matter.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, here again I have tried to shorten clause 4 (1). There are 9½ lines in this one sentence. I think it is wrong to have 9½ lines of English, or Afrikaans, in one sentence. I think we should make some sort of effort to shorten the contents of that subsection. For that reason, I move—

Again, I am sure that it is worth the Minister’s trouble to study this proposed amendment. He may find it advisable in the Other Place to bring in an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment. I want to point out to the hon. member that, in the first place, this provision was taken, in broad outline, from legislation in terms of which the C.S.I.R. was established. It was cast in that mould.

In the second place, neither he nor I am a legal expert, but the legal experts say that this is the way to put it and that they cannot do it in another way. If it is his objection that these 9½ lines are rather long, we can, of course, consider having it printed in smaller type. In that case there may perhaps be fewer lines. But I think he should take it from me that our legal advisers feel that it has to be this way and also in line with the C.S.I.R. legislation.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, here again I find that this is a very long clause. If my amendment is accepted, the clause will have exactly the same value. Therefore I move—

Again I ask the hon. the Minister to look at this proposed amendment. He may find it useful to him. If he does, I would like him to introduce an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments I raised in regard to clause 3 are also valid here. I just want to remind the hon. member that this provision, too, was to a large extent cast in the mould of the C.S.I.R. legislation. In the second place, the hon. member will be aware that this legislation is the outcome of many lengthy discussions and deliberations on the part of various scientists, committees, as well as the Scientific Advisory Council. It is as a result of those talks that these various matters do in fact appear in this Bill. I can give you the assurance. Sir, that my officials have looked at this and that this is the best we and our legal experts could do with it. However, I want to say that I cannot accept it at the moment, but we shall look at it once again since it can only do good. This will be done before we finally pass this Bill in the Other Place.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important clause. Subsection (2) reads as follows:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not reconsider this and substitute the word “may” for “shall”. I feel that the way it reads now means that everybody sitting on the council must stand for re-election again. What happens to those persons who do not want to stand for re-election? For this reason I say that the clause should read “may be eligible” if he so wishes. Do the words “shall be eligible” not mean that he must go forward? I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, this is a proposal I shall accept immediately. I think that this must have been a misprint, for if one reads the Afrikaans text, one finds that the re-appointment is in fact optional. Clause 6 (2) in the Afrikaans text reads as follows—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, clause 7 (1) reads as follows:

This, in effect, means that any person who is appointed to become the president of this council must be a medical practitioner. During the Second Reading debate we explained that we do not think it is such a good idea to always make the president a medical practitioner. What is more important to me is the fact that his term of office is an undetermined period. I think that we must have some determination because we, in all good faith, may appoint somebody whom we may find, after two to three years, to be absolutely useless. We will then be stuck with this man as president of this very important council. For this reason I ask for the deletion of the words “such period as the State President may determine” and the insertion of the words “a period of five years”. This amendment will then give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of making a re-appointment every five years. I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, first of all I just want to say something about the hon. member’s first point, i.e. that the president must in fact be a registered medical practitioner. I feel very strongly that the position must remain as it is. It will not only lend prestige to the council, which is a medical research council, but it will also bring about certainty in this regard. Therefore I am definitely of the opinion that the position must remain as it is.

I am prepared to accept the second point in regard to the five-year period, but perhaps not for the reason the hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned. I do not think it very likely that it will be found after five years that the person who was appointed is not worth his salt. In the case of all councils of this nature it is customary to make provision for a period of three or five years. I am glad that the hon. member did not insist on a period of three years, because I think that a period of five years would give rise to more stability. I am prepared to accept a period of five years.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to this clause on similar lines. Here again I should like to ask the Minister to accept an amendment which will limit the period of occupancy of the vice-president’s position to the period of five years. Again, Sir, I think it is better to have an appointment which can be reviewed after a period of five years. The amendment reads as follows:

I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, subsection (4) of clause 9 reads as follows:

We have considered this clause very carefully and I think it would be very much better, and it would give a true reflection of the feelings of the persons at the meeting, if the subsection were to read as follows:

This means that the people who actually vote will determine whether a resolution will go forward or not. As the clause reads now, there may be quite a large number of people at the meeting who do not vote. What is meant by a “majority” in such a case? Does it mean a majority of the people present, but not voting? The people may be present in the Chamber. They may be listening to the arguments, but they do not vote. How does one determine the voting strength of those people who do not vote? Let us therefore provide for a majority of persons voting rather than a majority of persons who are merely present. I therefore move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I really cannot accept this amendment. I shall explain why I cannot do so. As this clause reads at present, the procedure followed is the one which applies to all councils in South Africa. This has never given rise to problems. I should not like to create in the case of the Medical Research Council a situation where we would have to follow the UNO procedure with all its attendant problems. Hon. members know how matters are at UNO. There they follow the procedure which the hon. member is now proposing. It is important to me that the position remains as it is at present, for one would not like to place such a council in a situation where it would be stripped of its powers in that many of the members sit there and do not participate in the voting. We want this council to be a council which does in fact pass resolutions. In this legislation we do not want to create circumstances which will cause the council to be a powerless body as one so often sees in UNO.

What will happen if those persons do not want to vote?

In that case they simply abstain from voting.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to move an amendment to this clause, but only to make a few remarks in this connection. It is a difficult clause to reconcile with the rest of the Bill. It reads as follows:

I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to hold this matter over entirely until the Select Committee dealing with tissue transplants has presented its report. We shall then be able to go into this matter in greater detail. The hon. the Minister may find it necessary to exclude this clause and re-introduce it after the findings of the Select Committee has been made known.

I have already considered that aspect. However, if this clause is omitted, we may be making the Bill less strict in this respect. There are several societies, such as societies for the protection of animals, that have very strong feelings in regard to this matter. This clause is in fact a step in the right direction, i.e. towards determining by way of legislation the necessary measures as regards the protection of and proper control over animal and human material. What the hon. member has in mind, is, of course, the Bill that was referred to the Select Committee. Irrespective of what is decided there, it could, at any rate, only strengthen this provision. I should like to leave this matter at that and not have to introduce an amendment to this legislation at a later stage.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 100 of the Order Paper, which reads as follows:

I understand the recent history of this particular clause, and I think the House will remember that a few years ago, a previous section of this particular section was under review. The question of the supply of alcohol and rectified spirits has always been left slightly in doubt as a result of the wording of the Act as it stood. The amendment of a few years ago made quite clear the conditions under which rectified spirits or absolute alcohol could be supplied to the public. It also lays down that a quantity of 8 ounces was the maximum that could be supplied for bona fide medicinal purposes. I understand that arising out of the implementation of this particular section of the Act, there was a difficulty because the normal suppliers of rectified spirit in quantities above 8 ounces, were wholesale chemists and druggists; and I understand that in terms of the law the police found it necessary to lay down that wholesale chemists and druggists, if they sold rectified spirits in quantities in excess of 8 ounces, would be required to take out a wholesale spirit licence, which would involve them in fairly high expenditure. I believe that in order to overcome this difficulty the present amendment was put forward. Now this amendment makes it quite clear that any chemist and druggist—and that would therefore include retail and wholesale chemists and druggists—is entitled to sell rectified spirits without any mention of the quantity. But when one comes to examine the bodies and the persons to whom they can sell rectified spirits, I find a glaring omission. It says quite clearly that the chemist and druggist may sell it to another chemist and druggist, to a veterinarian, to a dentist or a medical practitioner or person in charge of any hospital, home or institution solely for the medical treatment of sick persons. But what about the educational institutions which normally use rectified spirits or absolute alcohol for educational and scientific purposes? I have made it my business to find out in Cape Town what the normal procedure is when it comes to the purchase and supply of rectified spirit by educational institutions. As a result I have learnt that, for example, the Advanced College for Technical Education in Cape Town is in the habit of purchasing its rectified spirits supplies from a wholesale chemist and druggist. I made further inquiries and found that certain schools, in addition to private schools and other educational institutions, also adopt this practice of purchasing from a wholesale chemist and druggist. As I understand it, if this clause is allowed to pass as it stands, the purchase by these educational institutions would fall under the previous subsection and would be limited to a quantity of 8 ounces. I am sure it is not the intention to limit educational institutions to the purchase of a quantity of 8 ounces. I believe it is a reasonable request to enlarge the extent of this clause to provide for educational institutions. I do not think there is any possibility of abuse and I trust that the Minister will accept my amendment.

I should like to say a word about this amendment. Quite recently it was reported in the Press that a distinguished South African citizen, in speaking to school children at a school function, expressed the view that children at school should be taught how to drink so that in later life they would know how to deal with alcoholic liquor.

The hon. member is off the rails. This deals with pure alcohol.

To me it is inconceivable that in a civilized community a leading citizen should advocate that schools should have wine-cellars and that students should be taught to drink. What we are anxious to do in our schools is to tell children and their parents what the dangers of alcoholic liquor are. There is no need to teach people how to drink. Drinking is not a virtue they have to acquire. It is something we have to warn children against. Drinking is like drugging. The Minister of Health has told us about the dangers of drugging. Nicotine is a drug and so is alcohol. It is surprising that we should have a leading citizen advocating the sale of wine to children. I think it is a disgraceful thing in this civilized community, and I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that in no circumstances will he countenance any action of that kind.

May I make the position quite clear in so far as the terms of my amendment are concerned. I have no intention to encourage drinking at school! I am only concerned with ensuring that the right to purchase or use alcohol for educational and scientific purposes is made legal in terms of this clause.

The hon. member for Berea has convinced me. I think his is a good amendment and I am prepared to accept it. He has pointed out correctly that his amendment reads as follows: “To supply absolute alcohol to any educational institution for bona fide educational or scientific purposes only”. I can also give the hon. member for Kensington the assurance that he asked for.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will explain to us why this deletion is necessary. On the face of it, para, (b) of subsection (1) of section 29 of the Act provides that any proceedings of the Licensing Board may be reviewed by any provincial or local division of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction, on the petition of any applicant or objector if it appears to the court that the conviction of an applicant which was before that board at the time of its decision has since been reversed or set aside on review or appeal, or that in respect of such conviction a free pardon has been granted. This has been in the Act for some time and it would seem, on the face of it, to be a relevant circumstance for an appeal or a review to the Supreme Court. I wonder whether the Minister will explain why this is being omitted.

In the past that was the only way in which this could take place. Let me put it as follows. In the past a licensing board did not have the right to restore a licence. In clause 5 (b) and (c) we are now giving the licensing board the right to restore a licence at an interim meeting, and seeing that this is much cheaper, we are now deleting section 29 (1) (b), which in the past gave the court the right to do this. In other words, this will now enable the licensing board to do this whereas it previously had to go to court.

Let us assume that after that event a free pardon is given, for example, because other circumstances have come to the knowledge of the Minister and he recommends a free pardon, this is now after the board has dealt with it. Is that not a circumstance which should be taken into account i.e. that if the board had known about it the board may well have taken a different decision, and should not that therefore be a ground on which he can take the matter on appeal or review?

There was no provision in the Act for the board at an interim meeting to consider the position. The board can now do so. I hope the hon. member understands it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us the reason for taking this new power in subsection (4) on page 12. This deals with applications for the renewal of licences. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could explain the purpose of this provision. *

The object of clause 29 is to enable the Minister to enforce uniform conditions and restrictions in respect of every class of liquor licence by notice in the Gazette. The amendment of subsection (3) enables licensing boards to impose additional conditions and restrictions in granting applications for the renewal of liquor licences. In terms of the new subsection (4) a chairman of a liquor licensing board may suspend the additional conditions or restrictions imposed by the board for a period not exceeding six months.

Sir, I have listened to what the hon. the Minister has said. Somehow I seem to find an anomaly here. In this clause, as we have throughout the whole Bill, we have a pre-occupation on the part of this Minister to take more and more powers unto himself. He has mentioned clause 29 where he is taking a blanket power to impose any condition at all upon licensees.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause under discussion.

Sir, I think it is pertinent to this …

I do not think so; I have given my ruling.

Very well, let us then come back to the hon. the Minister’s explanation. The hon. the Minister referred to the new subsection (4) which he has introduced here. My colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North), asked the Minister what the object was of this amendment, of this additional subsection (4), in which, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, he is giving the chairman of the board the power to suspend any of these conditions for six months. But, Sir, we still have not heard what the object is. As I say, the hon. the Minister is taking powers unto himself throughout the whole Bill, and now suddenly he takes a power out of subsection (3) and then introduces it in favour of the chairman of the board in subsection (4).

In terms of clause 29 the Minister is obtaining the right to impose uniform conditions for the various classes of liquor licences. We have not yet come to clause 29, but the idea there is to prevent every liquor licensing area from imposing its own conditions. The object here is to arrive at and impose uniform conditions. In the case of two classes of licences, i.e. foreign liquor licences and wine farmers’ licences, which normally are not issued by the Minister on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board but by a magistrate, we are giving a magistrate the right to impose additional restrictions or conditions on his part over and above restrictions or conditions imposed by the Minister. That is what is happening here in clause 9 (4). A magistrate may also suspend the restrictions or conditions, but we are providing that he may only suspend them for a period not exceeding six months.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell us why in altering section 33 of the original Act, he has not taken the opportunity of amending “pounds” to “rand”? There are other sections in the Act where the actual figure is changed but the amount is still expressed in pounds. It seems strange, when the Minister is amending the Act, that he has not taken the opportunity of bringing the figures into line with what is now South African currency.

In amending an Act in which the term “pound” was used originally, it is the general practice to continue doing so in the amending measure. This is what has happened in the case of this Bill.

Sir, is this despite the fact that in another clause, clause 16, the word “Crown” is changed to “Republic”? In clause 16 the term “an office of profit under the Crown” is being amended to read “an office of profit under the Republic”.

Order! I think the hon. member is out of order now.

I just want to indicate that that sort of change is being made in relation to a change of status, a change in circumstances, and since this Bill contains a large number of amendments, one would have thought that the point raised by the hon. member is a good point. If we are going to clean up the Liquor Act—and as I have indicated this is going to take some time—then let us do this thing properly. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would consider giving his attention to this when the Bill goes to the Other Place? *

The position simply is that if I were to accept the suggestion of the hon. member, it would mean that the expression “pound” would appear in some sections of the Act, after it had been amended, and the expression “rand” in other sections, unless we were to express all amounts at present expressed in pounds in rand from the commencement of the Act throughout, and that would require the amendment of the entire Act. Now is not the proper time for doing so.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

Does this clause deal with the transfer of bottle-store licences? Take the case of a classified hotel which is_ granted off-sales privileges. Is this the clause in terms of which authority will be given for the transfer of an off-sales licence from one spot to another.

No, clause 12 only deals with bottle-store licences and not with off-sales privileges.

Sir, I have a problem here. The Minister will know that last year I raised with him the question of the transfer of the sitting of an off-sales licence in East London, where a hotel had been classified and granted an off-sales licence and had applied to have their off-sales premises away from the hotel in an area alongside an established bottle store. I pointed out to the Minister then that the assurance had been given to me by the previous Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, on three occasions that in authorizing the siting of these off-sales premises he would not prejudice vested rights in any way. The Minister investigated that particular matter and decided to approve of what the officials had done in granting the licence in respect of those premises. It has been brought to my notice that having got the licence in those premises, the hotel disposed of its interests to a wholesaler. The hotel now wishes to give up its interests in those off-sales premises and the wholesaler has bought a bottle store and wishes to transfer the licence to the premises previously occupied by the hotel. Surely it was not intended that off-sales privileges should be used in this manner? I would like the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance now, while we are dealing with this section which deals with off-sales privileges, that it is not the intention to allow people to move bottle-store licences to premises previously used by a hotel for its off-sales business merely because the off-sales premises happen to be in that position. Sir, this is quite unfair. It lays itself open to the abuse that a hotel, because it has off-sales privileges, can apply for permission to have its premises far away from the hotel, it can be granted this facility and then, because a liquor business is being carried on on the premises, another bottle-store can use its licence to occupy those premises as well.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but the hon. member is discussing the wrong clause at the moment. This clause only deals with ordinary off-consumption licences, bottle-store licences. It does not include the privileges obtained as a result of classification. The hon. member was really discussing off-consumption privileges obtained as a result of classification. This clause does not deal with that at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain what effect this clause will have on sports ground liquor licences. The new provision seems to have been taken out of one part of the existing section and put into another part of the section which relates in a different way to the powers previously enjoyed by sports ground liquor licence holders. As this legislation is extremely complex, I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would enlighten us in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that this legislation is very complex. Clause 17 merely redrafts the old section 66. A few words are being omitted too. The new clause 17 (a) reads as follows—

1. (a) by the substitution for paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the following paragraph:
   1. (a) the holder of a bar licence, or a restaurant liquor licence, or an hotel liquor licence or a wine and malt liquor licence.

The words “or a sports ground liquor licence”, which appeared in the old section 66, are now being omitted. Sports ground liquor licences are used at rugby fields and horse races. These licences entitled the holders to sell liquor from the commencement of the game up to 30 minutes after the game. I just want to read to hon. members what preceeds this section in the principal Act. Hon. members should please be patient, because it is very difficult to fit these amendments into exactly their right places in the relevant sections. Section 66 of the principal Act deals with the qualifications of certain licensees. Subsection (4) of section 66 reads as follows—

1. (a) the holder of a bar licence, or a restaurant liquor licence, or an hotel liquor licence, or a wine and malt liquor licence, or a sports ground liquor licence.

This provisions has been rewritten and provision has been made for sports ground liquor licences. Clause 17 (c) amends the old paragraph (d) of the principal Act. Clause 17 (c), if passed, will read as follows—

In other words, a sports ground liquor licence can only be obtained in respect of the premises or at the club buildings in respect of which it is held. In that case a temporary liquor licence can be issued. A temporary liquor licence can only be granted to a sports ground licencee and a club licencee on the ground where the sports ground or the club is situated.

Mr. Chairman, does that in any way affect the right of the organizer of a series of football matches where there are not club premises with a sports ground licence? Does it prevent them from applying for a licence in respect of that particular football match?

Any of the other holders of a temporary licence may make application in respect of any other place, but as regards a sports ground liquor licence in respect of a sports ground at which meetings are usually held, as at Newlands, for example, or a race course as at Milnerton or Kenilworth, for example, a temporary licence cannot be obtained in respect of any other place than those grounds or those premises.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, this provides for other items which may be sold by bottle liquor licencees. The Bill mentions particularly cooler bags in addition to other articles and articles declared by the Minister by notice in the Gazette to be articles normally used in conjunction or in connection with the serving of liquor. Tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and matches were mentioned in the previous Act. Cooler bags have now been added and I wonder what things the hon. the Minister feels he might stipulate by regulation can be added to the articles normally used in connection with drinking.

We have already stipulated all the articles. We are only taking this general power in case we should be satisfied that there were additional articles which should be added. This is all we have in mind.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, can he tell us how he would decide what items are those normally used in conjunction or in connection with the serving of liquor? I raise this question, notwithstanding the comments of some of the hon. members of this House, in all seriousness, because in the past we have had interference with the interests of vested interests by such a provision. It has happened that a provision has been laid down in connection with an article normally used in connection with some or other thing. This has been construed more or less like this: Provided somebody can produce one or two traders or dealers, in this case liquor licencees, who happen to stock that particular item in their business that then becomes something usually “connected with the serving of liquor”. In all seriousness, I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what criteria he would use in deciding upon an article under this section.

Mr. Chairman, the idea is to consult the organized liquor trade when additional articles come up for consideration.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister told me that the point I wanted to raise under clause 12 should be raised under this clause. I take it this is the clause under which the Minister suggested I should raise my query?

Yes, you can do so.

The point I am trying to make is this. A hotel which has been granted an off-sales privilege and has applied to sell liquor for off-consumption at premises other than at the hotel site, that is elsewhere in the urban area, can then enter into a contract with a wholesaler and the wholesaler then in fact manages the off-sales department for that hotel. If the hotel wishes to get out of this contract then the contract is cancelled. But a licenced business has been carried on at that site. The wholesaler then buys a bottle store elsewhere and applies to transfer the bottle store licence to the site on which the liquor business had been carried on. When I raised the matter under clause 12 I wanted to ask the Minister whether he could take steps to stop a liquor licensing board approving the transfer of that licence where there has obviously been an abuse of a privilege which was granted to the hotel. That is what I want to know from the Minister, namely whether he has the power to intervene in a case like this where he feels there has been an abuse. As far as this clause 19 is concerned, I do not think this matter can be raised, because nothing in this clause prevents a bottle store from applying for a transfer of a licence to another site. Seeing the Minister said I should raise the matter under this clause, I shall be glad if he would give us an indication of the Government’s policy with regard to these licences.

Mr. Chairman, the position is as follows. We are now dealing with an ordinary off-consumption privilege which has been obtained as a result of classification. When the privilege was obtained, the hotel proprietor, who was the off-consumption licencee, apparently went and transferred the privilege to a wholesaler. Is this the point which the hon. member was making?

Yes.

If a case like this were to come to our attention, we would withdraw his off-consumption privilege. As a matter of fact, I think in the case to which the hon. member referred we have been threatening the person concerned and we are on the point of withdrawing the privilege, if this has not already been done. The hon. member has my assurance that what he referred to is not my policy and that my Department will not tolerate something like that happening.

Mr. Chairman, once again I rise merely to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can explain what the law is at the moment and what change this clause brings about so far as children are concerned. In terms of the clause it may be provided that in certain parts of certain premises women and children may also be allowed. I am more concerned here with the children. Will the Minister explain to us what parts of what premises it is intended that children should be allowed to attend? If one lives at or visits a licensed hotel and one has a drink in the hotel lounge, is one allowed to have one’s children under the prescribed age there with one? What is the present position? I do not know what the law on this is, but if that is in fact the law what then is this clause going to change in that respect?

Mr. Chairman, at present there are more than one restricted portion in an hotel. The men’s bar is a restricted portion and the so-called ladies’ bar is also a restricted portion. Children may not be present in the restricted portion of an hotel. Now it happens that an eating place is provided in the ladies’ bar. As a matter of fact, in my home town there is an hotel with a restaurant in the restricted portion whereas the bar, the counter with the liquor, is situated to one side. As the Act stands at present, a child may not enter that portion and a child who arrives there in the company of his parents may not eat there with his parents while the parents may have a drink with their meal. What this proposed amendment amounts to is that children will be allowed to have a meal there in the company of their parents, but they may not be served liquor. The amendment is being made to cover cases like these. In subsequent clauses of this Bill a similar amendment is being made in respect of clubs and restaurants as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister provides here for the employment of females, in other words, barmaids. I want to know from the Minister why he restricts these barmaids only to the restricted portions of licensed premises, that is where women can be served with men, or in the restaurants referred to. I submit that the use of barmaids in ordinary bars will have a very salutary effect. The Minister has been overseas and would have gone into bars all over Europe. Especially in Britain he finds many barmaids serving in men’s bars.

The Minister?

Yes, that is why he was made Minister of Justice. The behaviour in the bars was very good. I visited several of them just to see what the behaviour was like. I knew the Liquor Act was going to be changed and I wanted to see what went on there.

You must have done some pub-crawling.

Yes, in the interests of my country—and I certainly was not crawling! Prior to 1928 we had barmaids in South Africa. But in the Transkei we have always had barmaids. We are civilized in the Transkei so we always permitted women in bars too. That is part of our law there, women can go into bars in the Transkei.

Children also?

No, I invite the Minister to give me any instance where children have been allowed in bars there. Children are not allowed; they are very strict about that. I submit women should be allowed to be barmaids. I fail to see why they should be restricted to the special portions of the premises only. I do not know what experiences the Minister has had or why he is introducing this small innovation. He indicated to us that these barmaids would be screened. He said he was not going to go into “vital statistics” but he was going to screen them in other ways. Will every licensee have to apply to the Minister for approval before the barmaid is engaged or how is the Minister going to approve the use of barmaids in these restricted portions? The clause refers to “subject to such conditions …”. What sort of conditions does the Minister think of laying down regarding the employment of barmaids in the restricted portions? I should be grateful if the Minister would give us some more information as to what his policy is likely to be regarding the employment of these women. *

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has in point of fact touched on two matters. The first is the question of barmaids in general. This question was settled as long ago as 1928, when this House decided not to allow them any more, except the few which were licencees. This principle is not under discussion now, nor is it my intention to restore barmaids generally at a later stage. What is under discussion now is that it may possibly be something good, particularly in view of the shortage of bartenders, to allow women to be bar-tenders in those portions restricted as ladies’ bars. In terms of the clause the minimum age will be 18 years. During the Second Reading debate yesterday I said I intended raising this considerably. The idea as far as general conditions in respect of classification are concerned, will probably be that a woman may also be employed as a bar-tender in those portions of the hotel set aside as ladies’ bars, if it is a classified hotel. However, this will be subject to conditions; for example, she may not be under 25 years of age.

Why does the clause specify 18 years?

This is the term which is used throughout the Act, i.e. “children under the age of 18 years”. Up to 18 years a person still is a child. The idea is, however, that this will be a condition of the privilege obtained as a result of classification. For example, such a person will now go to the local magistrate and say, “I shoud like to employ a certain woman”. The magistrate will then make inquiries with regard to her age and character. He will ask for testimonials. He will consult the police officer of the licensing district and take a decision. It will be within his discretion to decide whether or not he will allow that person to employ that particular woman. This, in brief, is the idea.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I am very disappointed with the hon. the Minister’s reply. To begin with, I am surprised to hear him say that the question of the employment of barmaids was settled in 1928, and therefore we are going to abide by what was decided in 1928.

It is not under discussion now. It is not provided for in the clause. That is the point.

I am talking about the appointment of barmaids. The proposed section 71bis (7) (c) (iv) reads: “To employ, subject to such conditions or restrictions as the Minister may deem fit to impose, in or in connection with the sale of liquor in any restricted portion of his premises specified under subparagraph (iii), females of the age of 18 years or more.”

All in respect of ladies’ lounges in classified hotels.

Yes, but may I ask the hon. the Minister why must they only be employed in a restricted portion, in ladies’ lounges, in these classified hotels? Why can they not be in the bars? That is the point I am raising with the Minister. It provides for their employment. Why will they only be employed in this one restricted area, namely the women’s bar? Why not allow them to be employed in the men’s bar? That is the point I am trying to make. One of the reasons the Minister gave to me in reply was that the matter was settled in 1928.

And I do not propose to raise it again.

But the Minister has altered the provision from what it was in 1928. If he was not altering it, it would not have been necessary for him to introduce this provision in this Bill. The mere fact that he is introducing an amendment to the Act to allow it, shows that it is necessary. I do hope that the Minister is not going to erase the impression he has given to the whole country that he is one of the “verligtes”. I hope that he is not going to go back now and make us believe that he is really a “verkrampte”. The Minister himself has departed from the principle of the 1928 legislation by bringing in this amendment. The reason he gives is because there is a shortage of manpower for service in these bars. If it is wrong for a woman to serve in a bar, it is just as wrong for her to serve because there are no men to employ as if there were lots of men to employ. If it is wrong morally for a woman to serve in a bar, then it does not justify it because there is a manpower shortage. I say that the employment of women in men’s bars, especially in the classified hotels, can be justified, because in a classified hotel the management is not going to allow unruly behaviour in their bars. They are classified. They have a status to uphold. With regard to the employment of these barmaids, the law does not lay down that a magistrate must approve of the character of a barman before he is employed. Why should the magistrate have to go into all these details, police reports, etc., about a barmaid just because she happens to be a woman? I say it should be up to the management. We are only dealing with classified hotels. It is up to the management to pick a person whom they think will be suitable in their hotel. I submit that it is not necessary that the Minister lay down all these difficulties in the way of the management for employing a barmaid in a hotel.

If the hon. member is arguing the point and asking why women cannot also be employed as barmaids in men’s bars in classified hotels as I am now allowing them to be employed in ladies’ bars in classified hotels, he has a point for discussion. My reply to that is as follows: I am not in favour of women in men’s bars, just as my predecessor in this House in 1928 was not in favour of that either. I am not even in favour of that as far as classified hotels are concerned, not even in the light of what the hon. member told me with regard to the Transkei. What I am in favour of and what I see my way clear to propose in this House, is the employment of barmaids in ladies’ bars, where the atmosphere is different, where women mix freely, where there is a restaurant and where even children are allowed. I am trying this as an experiment. I do not know how it is going to work out. I hope and expect that it will work out well. I am prepared to propose this in respect of bars in the restricted portions of hotels set aside for women, but I am not prepared to go further than that.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister really serious about this matter? I wonder whether he has in fact done any investigation outside this country as to the drinking habits of people, and men particularly, and their behaviour where there are barmaids. This is not a very great advance from 1928. The legislation of 1928 was in itself an experiment, in the days when everyone was experimenting with liquor. I hope that the hon. the Minister has not really closed his mind to this question altogether. One can take the U.S.A., for example. The U.S.A. has had a lot of marvellous experiments as to this question of drinking: of prohibition, complete prohibition, partial prohibition, of having men’s bars and women’s bars. I really cannot agree with the hon. the Minister when he suggests that this might produce some ill effect in those pubs. Far from it! It produces a very good effect. I want to support my hon. friend from the Transkeian Territories in saying that, when one goes into these places overseas, this is the atmosphere one finds, for the very reason that there is a woman serving behind the counter. This is quite the opposite of what the hon. the Minister says. I am not suggesting the hon. the Minister should send a commission around the world to have an international official pubcrawl. But I do feel that the hon. the Minister, before he closes his mind to the subject, should ask his Department to do some research on this matter. A lot of sociological research has been done. The Minister should also talk with hon. members who were away during the recess and I am sure that the hon. Minister will have much to cause him to reconsider this whole question. Let us get away and move a little bit forward from the year 1928.

In clause 19 (a) it is stated that the Minister may require information and documents “pertaining to such accommodation establishment, including a description of the premises concerned and a plan thereof as he may deem fit”. What exactly is meant by this? I can appreciate the hon. the Minister wanting a plan, but I cannot appreciate what the words “description of the premises” mean in this context. Subsection (7) (b) inserted by clause 19 (a) reads as follows: “At any time amend or delete any such condition or restriction or attach any further condition or restriction to any such certificate as he may deem fit.” I would have thought that the Minister has sufficient powers when the classification took place not to require a further power in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I think I shall first deal with the question of the additional restriction. I deem it necessary for the Minister to obtain this power, especially in connection with off-consumption privileges. I should like to grant off-consumption privileges to a particular person or hotel for particular premises for which he applies. On the recommendation of the National Liquor Board I may then be prepared to grant those privileges on condition that he may only sell to Whites on those premises and not to non-Whites. At the moment I do not have the power to restrict such a person to sell to Whites only, unless I receive a written undertaking from such a person that he will do so. Such cases do occur and it is to cover this type of case that the Minister is being empowered to impose a further restriction. This power did not exist under the original Act. As regards the plan and further particulars in connection with such plan which a proprietor or lessee may be required to furnish, the idea behind that is merely to do away with reclassification every three years, which entails unnecessary expenditure. However, they are required to furnish these particulars so as to enable the Minister and the Liquor Board to ascertain that the condition of the premises still is as it was when they were originally classified and that no alterations have been made. Coupled with the inspections which are carried out, one is then in a position to accommodate the people and to tell them that they may continue to enjoy their classification privileges without their having to apply for reclassification. This is the idea behind the proposed subsection.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the question of the supply of liquor on polling days and it makes certain exemptions. I do not have any quarrel with these exemptions, but there are a few points I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first point is the question of the radius from a polling booth on election day, for there seems to be some doubt as to what radius means and there seem to be different ways of interpreting it. In the final analysis it seems to me as if the Police decide on what the radius is. The second aspect is that while you are barred from selling liquor on election days in a particular area, there is nothing to prohibit an outside bottle store from sending liquor into that area on election days. It seems to me that these are two matters that the hon. the Minister might give some attention.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the remarks of the hon. member. I should like to move the following amendment in respect of clause 21—

I just want to explain what the idea behind this amendment is. At present the magistrate of the district authorizes the supply of liquor to ships which are about to sail and which docked during the night. However, the chief magistrate is not always available, and for that reason provision is now being made for such permission to be granted by somebody acting under his authority.

As regards the distance from the polling booth which the hon. member mentioned, I want to point out to him that section 181 of the Electoral Act is also included in this, and that it is not applicable in respect of one population group or another. I want to say in all honesty that I am not clear about what the position is as regards bringing liquor into an area on polling day, as laid down by the Electoral Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister explain why his policy now appears to be to prevent a further extension of wholesalers who can deal directly with the public? I am sure that it is a matter about which the public may well be concerned, considering the amount of money one saves by buying something wholesale. This appears to be a restriction of the future number of wholesalers who can deal directly with the public.

Mr. Chairman, as long ago as in 1963 it was decided by this House—and this is the policy—that wholesalers should deal with the trade, with the exception of the few wholesalers who carried on business at that time and who, subject to certain conditions, could deal directly with the public. The retail trade would then deal with the public. The wholesalers continued to deal with the public, however. Time does not allow me to reply to the other questions put by the hon. members, but I shall do so at a later stage. I now move—

Agreed.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I wish to move the following motion—

This morning several of us had the privilege of attending a most impressive function at which the new cable between South Africa and Portugal was inaugurated. It was a signal occasion and I believe I speak on behalf of hon. members on both sides of the House when I say that we wish this new South Atlantic Cable Company well. We believe that something has been accomplished in the interests of South Africa, something which we were forced to accomplish after we became a Republic and were ousted from the old Commonwealth Cable Agreement. I trust, too, that it will be an example to the Government and to the hon. the Minister of how private enterprise and the technicians of our Post Office Department can work together for the benefit of the country and of the telecommunications services in our country. Indeed, Sir, I saw something remarkable to-day, something one does not see every day in South Africa. I saw our Postmaster-General dial a number on the telephone and you know, Sir, he got through immediately! That is indeed something that does not happen every day, nor, I believe, was this conversation, which came over very clearly, interrupted by conversations between Comrade Mao and Mr. Kosygin about their own little problems, as we so often have our own conversations interrupted.

But, seriously, Sir, I believe it is a sad reflection on this Government that it has become necessary to introduce a motion of this nature calling upon the Government, almost in desperation, to do something about the telephone shortage. I know of no other country in the world where it has been necessary during the past decade for an Opposition to come with a deliberate private motion of this nature. This telephone shortage is no longer a joke to us. It has developed from a joke into a nuisance, from a nuisance into a menace, and from a menace into a real crisis for the whole of our economy to-day. I am not alone in saying this. We have the Chamber of Commerce on our side, we have the Chambers of Industries on our side, and we have the Afrikaanse Sakekamers throughout the whole country on our side. The life of our nation depends on adequate communications. Without that our economy can stagnate and it might even collapse. We need a telecommunications system that is speedy, accurate and private. I believe that our present system of telephones does not come up to these standards in any respect whatsoever. It does not even remotely reflect those standards in the state of affairs we have to-day.

A few weeks ago a past president of the Federated Chambers of Industry, a responsible person who knew what he was talking about, said: “South Africa’s telephone system is the worst in any developed country.” Strong words, but how can we gainsay him? Let us look at the evidence. I will confine the evidence to a few incidents which happened during the last few months, and I shall further confine myself to the area of the Witwatersrand, while my colleagues will speak about other areas in the country which are almost as bad, although it might be some satisfaction to hon. members opposite to know that there is some difference of opinion among us as to whether the Witwatersrand or Cape Town or Durban or Port Elizabeth or East London is the worst. You can open the newspapers or your correspondence every day and find things such as the following. You find a township of 1,000 houses on the Rand which has been without a single private telephone for a period of two years while there are only two public telephones to serve the area.

Why do you not mention the name of the townships?

I can mention names. One is Bonaero Park, and the name of the second one is Germiston, which the hon. member represents. I challenge him to deny that the charges in the Wadeville-Germiston area have in many cases been doubled, and I challenge him to deny that the Afrikaanse Sakekamer protested … [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member to deny that he received complaints and that he had to go and see the Postmaster-General.

You are wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

And the matter was put right.

Or did he not go to see the Minister, and has the position improved or not?

It is working properly and nothing is wrong.

Order! The hon. member must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech. He will get his chance to speak later.

Just two hours ago I asked the hon. the Minister for a list of the exchanges that have been closed; in other words, exchanges where no further new lines could be allowed, and one of the names he gave me was Germiston.

Do you know how big Germiston is?

From businesses, from chambers of commerce, from the West Rand to the East Rand, from Boksburg, Benoni, Springs, Randfontein, Edenvale, and above all, from Johannesburg itself, we have had complaints. The Chairman of the Boksburg Industrial Association had to cry out in despair the other day that the service is shocking. He said that telephones are our lifeline and we cannot do business without them. The F.C.I. and other bodies have protested on local and on national level, but the position has become worse and worse. Does the Minister not realize that, unless we have adequate telecommunications, businesses can actually break down? Contracts cannot be negotiated. Orders cannot be placed. Staff cannot receive proper instructions. Plans cannot be co-ordinated. Does he not realize that as a result of all this we have delays, waste and frustration? Our telephone cableways are the highways of speech and to-day those highways are overloaded and chaotic conditions result. [Interjections.] Even the telex services, apart from the telephone services, have deteriorated to such an extent that there are twice as many applications for telex services outstanding today as there were two years ago. Let us remember that our news services, our Stock Exchange and many of our businesses depend on an adequate telex service.

What is going to happen to our defence in an amergency if our communication and telephone systems break down? Does the Minister not realize how absolutely essential it is for us to have those services? Does the Minister not realize how he is rejecting one of the finest sources of income by not building up the telephone service on business lines? But instead of trying to get more customers, he is chasing them away. Instead of getting the people to use the telephones to a greater extent, appeals go out that housewives should not speak on the telephone so often. In order to run a telephone service on business lines, I can show him what they do in America. They send out pamphlets to telephone subscribers encouraging them to use the telephone, and special services such as mobile telephone and overseas services. In the U.S.A. they exhort the subscribers to buy extension phones, wall phones and table phones, and so on. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech. Can hon. members not see that their telecommunication systems are out of order?

I believe the main sufferers are indeed the public. The telephone should keep us close to our families and to our friends. It should buy and sell our goods. It should make appointments for us to plan our work and our leisure. But what happens under this Government? This afternoon I heard the hon. the Minister say communications build goodwill and friendship, but that does not happen in South Africa, not with the telecommunications we have here. If ever anything caused frustration, it has been the lack of telephones in South Africa.

Is there a single person in this House who has not had the following experience dozens of times? Has any member ever picked up the phone and discovered there was no dialling tone whatever? In Boksburg there are instances of people waiting for 2½ hours to get a dialling tone. Sometimes you wait half an hour in Johannesburg to get a dialling tone, for instance to Edenvale. Sometimes you do get a sound, but it is the one indicating that the number is no longer connected. You continue dialling because you know it is a business which can not be disconnected, and later you get the engaged signal, but the engaged sound does not really mean that the number is engaged. We were told, I think it was by the Postmaster-General or some other responsible official, that “junction cables get clogged and people get the engaged signal when the subscriber is not in fact engaged”. If the poor subscriber tries again, what happens is what I indicated some time ago, namely that he runs into some intriguing conversation by entirely unknown people on a topic foreign to him, and he hastily puts the phone down. If I had kept on listening on the occasions it happened to me, I could have got some very good racing or Stock Exchange tips. Indeed, when I was recently speaking on the phone to a colleague of mine, discussing the sins of the Nationalist Party, a voice suddenly came over the telephone, while I was conducting what I regarded as a private conversation, saying: “Dit lieg jy.” [Laughter.]

Even the Nationalist newspapers say that the position is getting out of hand. Dagbreek wrote that if you dial 50 to get a trunk call all you get is the nought. But the hon. the Minister himself admitted it in this House last year in June when he said: “I want to admit openly that the quality of the telephone service is worsening all the time”. How right he was, Sir, for once!

Now, Sir, these are the facts. Let us now look at the actual figures themselves, the statistics given by the hon. the Minister in reply to questions raised in Parliament. The first is this. The telephone shortage to-day is 72,000. As far as I know it has never been as big before in the history of South Africa, except once under this Government many years ago. Sir, do you know what the figure of 72,000 means? It means that in two years the shortage has more than doubled.

And we got a new Minister.

And, as my hon. friend says, we got a new Minister. The hon. the Minister took over last year, and in less than a year the shortage increased from 59,000 to 72,000, an increase of 20 per cent.

Let them bring Albert back.

Sir, I never thought I would ever live to see the day when I had to admit things were better under the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs!

Sir, let us look at the Witwatersrand itself. On the Witwatersrand the shortage has doubled in two years’ time. To-day it is 29,000 compared to only 12,000 in 1966. More than 40 per cent of the shortages are on the Witwatersrand. The state of affairs has been chaotic at times, particularly during the recent change-over, when telephone books were issued ahead of time and numbers were unobtainable over a very long period. The worst news, Sir, came only two hours ago in a reply which the hon. the Minister so kindly gave me, and I thank him for his reply. I asked him first of all how many telephone exchanges in the whole of the country had been closed. A closed telephone exchange is one which can take no new lines except in cases of absolute emergency, namely telephones for the police, the fire brigade and so forth. Do you know, Sir, that there are no fewer than 82 such telephone exchanges completely closed in the whole of South Africa to-day? Of these 29 are in Johannesburg and on the Witwatersrand. I think it would be a good thing if I were to read out the names of these 29 exchanges and indicate the number waiting for telephones at each one of them.

Many of them sound like Nationalist constituencies and one wonders what their members have been doing for their constituents: Alberton, closed, 810 waiting for telephones; Benoni. closed 2,200 waiting for telephones; Edenvale, closed, 1,048 waiting for telephones; Kempton Park, closed, 2,313 waiting; Nigel, closed; Boksburg, closed; Germiston, closed; Isando, closed; North Rand, closed; Springs, closed, 1.464 waiting; Wadeville, closed, 704 waiting for telephones; Dunnottar, closed; Florida, closed; Muldersdrift, closed.

Then I come to Johannesburg itself: Bramley, closed, 906 waiting; Bryanston, closed, 950 waiting; Hillbrow, closed, 1,070 waiting; Jeppe, closed, 680 waiting; Johannesburg Central, closed, 1,300 waiting; Joubert Park, closed, 1,700 waiting; Kensington, closed, 1,465 waiting; Linden, closed, 2,127 waiting; Mayfair, closed. 1,000 waiting; Newlands, closed; Rose-bank, closed; Rossettenville, closed; Sandown, closed; Turffontein, closed, 1,422 waiting.

Sir, in the past when we have raised this matter the hon. the Minister has come here with figures of his own, as he will no doubt do again this afternoon. I want to analyse some of those figures in anticipation. First of all, the hon. the Minister will be telling us that last year or the year before that, no fewer than 120,000 or 130,000 new services were instituted. Sir, that sounds impressive. It is the story that is told at congresses of the F.C.I., at congresses of the Chambers of Commerce and at Nationalist Party congresses. Sir, do you know what that figure actually means? Do you know what the Minister actually does? In giving you that figure, he takes no account of the telephone services which have been closed down, which have been cut off and then given to other people. He takes no account of transfers. In fact, if a telephone is transferred from one exchange area to another exchange area, the Minister includes that in his figure of 122,000. How many such instances were there amongst the 122,000 last year? No fewer than 91,000 instances of services which had been suspended and also a large number of services which had been transferred—so we have to be careful when the hon. the Minister quotes figures to us.

I am sure that this afternoon he will also tell us of the huge amount which will be devoted to capital expenditure during the next three or four years, an amount of probably over R200 million. When the hon. the Minister does that, I want him to say first of all how much of that capital has to be spent to replace out-dated equipment, to replace out-dated buildings, to replace things which have become wornout and to replace capital expenditure which in the past was incurred partly by the Public Works Department and partly by the Department of Transport. We want to know that, and once those figures have been given, I am sure you will agree with me, Sir, that the amount of new capital for telephone expansion during the next four or five years is very much less than adequate. The figures that the hon. the Minister gives us remind me very much of some of the shares on the Stock Exchange. The figures climb higher and higher, but the returns become less and less. Sir, it is no use the hon. the Minister mentioning the figures in other countries.

How do you know that I will do so?

The Minister has done it so often that I am anticipating him. It is no use the hon. the Minister quoting the figures of other countries to us. His predecessor told us that there was a shortage of two million telephones in Japan, but do you know, Sir, what the facts are? In Japan actually they are installing two million new telephones every year, and apparently his predecessor thought that that indicated the shortage of telephones! I shall not quote to the hon. the Minister the case of the United States, where five million new telephones are installed every year—14,000 every day. Let us rather compare South Africa with small nations with the same number of telephones that we have. Take Australia where every day 470 new telephones are installed. According to what I have been told, you can telephone the Telephone Department and within 24 hours you have a new telephone. Take Brazil, where 340 new telephones are installed every day. I mention Brazil because they have more or less the same number of telephones as we have. This also applies to Mexico where 300 new telephones are installed every day. In each of these cases they are doing two or more times better than we are doing in South Africa.

Sir, we also beg the hon. the Minister: Please do not come to us with false promises. In June, 1968, he told us: “The backlog should be eliminated in five years barring unforeseen circumstances.” Since then the position has worsened by 20 per cent, in nine months’ time. Have there been unforeseen circumstances? If so, what are they? Or are the figures simply an indication of a growth in the shortage that is still to come over the years? Can he tell us what the shortage will be in, say, March, 1970? Eighty thousand to a hundred thousand? Where will this calamity have brought us by that time?

Sir, I do not hesitate for one single moment in blaming the Government and no one but the Government for the shortage of telephones. There is a lack of interest in this matter in the ranks of the Cabinet. Where are the Cabinet Ministers this afternoon who should be taking an interest in this debate and who could solve these problems? Where is the Minister of Finance, who should grant the necessary money? Where is the Minister of the Interior, who is associated through the Public Service Act with the Post Office Department? Where is the Minister of Labour, who can solve the big manpower problem? Where is the Minister of Economic Affairs and, above all, where is the Minister of Planning? What have we? We have a Minister with a burden on his shoulders which is too heavy for him.

Sir, I am sure that this afternoon we will again hear a confession from the Minister, as we have had in the past, a confession that he admits that the state of affairs is not really good and that it might become worse before it becomes better. Sir, we are getting tired of these confessions. We do not want confessions; we want telephones. We do not want phoney arguments, we want telephones. In ancient Greece on Mount Olympus they had the god Mercury, who was the messenger of the gods of Olympus. Mercury had winged feet; he had wings on his helmet; What have we, Sir? We have the hon. the Ministers! Sir, we do not want a Mercury in clogs; we want a Minister.

Sir, I blame this Government for this shortage. I blame the Government for the staff shortages which have bedevilled all possible development during the past years. I blame the Government for not paying the Post Office staff a proper wage, thus causing a 12,000 annual turnover of staff. I blame it for the shortage of 360 and more qualified engineers, technicians and mechanics to-day in the Post Office. I thank heaven that there are dedicated men in the Post Office who are doing their duty and ten times more than their duty to keep our telecommunication system running. Our admiration for them knows no bounds; we thank them for what they are doing. They do not deserve a Government such as this.

Let it not be forgotten, Sir, that last year when the Post Office Re-adjustment Act was discussed in Parliament, we pleaded with the hon. the Minister to accept an amendment which asked him to include amongst “business principles” proper services to the public in regard to telecommunications and proper wages to the Post Office staff, and what happened? The hon. the Minister, the whole Cabinet, every single hon. member on that side, voted against that amendment. I blame the Government for having aggravated the shortage through half-baked measures in the past. Let it not be forgotten that we tried to give the hon. the Minister greater autonomy in the Post Office in an amendment last year. Again he turned it down; his Cabinet turned it down and the whole of the Government turned it down.

I blame this Government for not planning ahead. The hon. the Minister himself said in June last year that he had been “obliged to replace effective long-term planning” by short-term measures. What an admission of failure! Sir, I blame the Government for not supplying sufficient capital for the development of the Post Office. We had the remarkable sight yesterday of the hon. the Minister of Finance telling us, “There is a surplus, an overflow, of money in this country,” so much in fact that he went overseas and got more money from Switzerland and more money from Germany. Sir, cannot the hon. the Minister ask the Minister of Finance for a few extra rand for the Post Office? I blame the Government, the Cabinet as a whole, for having made an utter mess of the whole manpower situation in South Africa, and I say that unless the Minister and the Government can solve this manpower problem, this shortage of telephones will never be eliminated. To the hon. the Minister himself I say: We are not going to judge him by his statistics; we are going to judge him by his results. We are not going to judge him by whether we can dial directly to Timbuktu or to Reikjavik. All we want to dial is the next suburb. We are not impressed to hear that micro-waves will be carrying our telephone conversations from Hertzog Tower to Hertzog Tower. We, 72,000 citizens, want telephones.

Sir, I conclude by saying this: A Government is as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link is undoubtedly to-day the telecommunication system under this Government, and judged by that, this is the worst Government that we have ever had in the country’s history.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) expresses its gratitude to the Government for the action it has taken to place the Post Office on a business footing and to enable it to eliminate within the shortest possible time the backlog of telecommunication services; and
2. (2) pays tribute to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for the satisfactory ser vice which it is rendering and for the comprehensive and modern telecommunications system which it has established, in spite of the phenomenal development of the country and the restrictions on capital expenditure to combat inflationary conditions.”

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat was present to-day at that splendid function in the main Post Office building, and although he expressed a word of appreciation here in the first part of his speech …

Half-heartedly.

Yes, I believe it was worse than half-heartedly. He expressed his appreciation to the Postmaster-General and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the other people concerned for the fact that an overseas cable communication link of this kind has now been established. I am amazed therefore that after what he heard and saw there, he still had the courage to proceed in this House with a motion such as this in which he criticized, from beginning to end, the hon. the Minister and the officials of the Post Office. He spoke about one thing and one thing only, and that was the shortage of telephones. He tried to dramatize the matter, as he usually tries to do. But mindful of the recent no-confidence debate I remembered how the hon. member had exploited the fact that somebody had purchased an antique for R3,000. I am certain that that hon. member did not contribute a cent towards that amount. I am certain that he had nothing to do with it. I am certain that it has nothing to do with the House, and that it is merely a private matter. The fact that the hon. member could raise such a matter in this House shows how petty the hon. member can be.

He made a few statements here to which I want to react briefly before I proceed with my argument. He said that the tremendous achievement of laying the overseas cable was “an example to the Government of co-operation between the private sector and the Government”. One could almost say, from the way in which the hon. member spoke, that he was sick. This project was being planned for 12 years, and now that it is in operation, it is suddenly an example of planning and co-operation. That hon. member’s brain does not move backwards or forwards. I think it remains quite stationary. In regard to the telephone services he stated, inter alia, and he quoted other persons to prove it, that “The telephone system in South Africa is the worst of any civilized country”. The hon. member travelled very far in order to be able to say that. But I want to prove the contrary by saying that we here in South Africa, with our small population and restricted means, have a telephone service which is as good as that of any developed country of South Africa’s size.

He also made certain allegations in regard to our telex services. I want to say that if we were outside this House, I would be able to find a word to refute that. But, Mr. Speaker, I may not use the word here because you will immediately ask me to withdraw it. I shall therefore leave it to the hon. member’s imagination. In this regard the hon. member mentioned a few local cases, i.e. those of Boksburg and Johannesburg. Inter alia, he spoke about the shortage of telephones there. Neither the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs nor the present Minister has ever denied that there is in fact a shortage of telephones. But is it anything new? I want to take his mind back to the time when his party was in power. I want to say that in 1937, under the United Party Government, there was a shortage of 7,000 telephones. That shortage has never been alleviated. On the contrary, in 1947, that shortage increased from 7,000 to 65,000. In 1948 the National Party came into power, and in 1962, according to that member, there was a shortage of 11,000 telephones. According to my figures there was a shortage of 9,500 telephones. There was therefore a shortage of between 9,000 and 11,000 telephones in 1962. But everybody in South Africa knows that since 1962 phenomenal development has taken place in South Africa. As a result of essential capital expenditure on very important matters, owing to circumstances prior to 1962, it was wise of this Government to apply the brakes in regard to these matters.

I want to say that I am truly amazed to see that the hon. member was able to transport us to Hyde Park in London. Unfortunately all we did not see was the soap-box. It took my mind back to the arguments which take place there. An hon. member is alleging that the steps which were taken to alleviate the shortage were inadequate. He alleges that the steps which were taken are unrealistic and that they will not meet our telecommunication requirements. He requested that an immediate and comprehensive programme be considered. Is what hon. members saw to-day not proof of comprehensive programmes and planning? No, the hon. member’s motion is an unrealistic one. I hope it is permissible if I say that I am of the opinion that it is even presumptuous. Only last year legislation was piloted through this House to make the Post Office independent as far as its finances was concerned. This was done approximately nine months ago. On 19th March the hon. the Minister will introduce his Budget. Can one subsequently criticize in advance the planning of the Post Office in regard to post and telecommunication services? That is the reason why I am saying that I regard this argument of the hon. member as being presumptuous. When those first estimates of the Department are introduced next month, we will be able to judge whether there are plans for better services, if the services can under the present circumstances be improved. We do in fact think that as far as telephones are concerned, there is in fact room for improvement, but there are good reasons why the situation up to now has been like this. I told hon. members that the position in respect of telephones was the same even when the United Party was in power.

This adjustment which makes the Post Office independent and places it on the basis of a business undertaking, is a realistic one. It represents positive planning and judicious action. I am amazed that the hon. member for Orange Grove did not first afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity of introducing his estimates. Then this House would have been able to see what the change had brought. We admit that this Department of Posts and Telegraphs has a great backlog to make up. I have just mentioned the figures in respect of the shortage of telephones. Owing to the phenomenal development of the country and the restrictions on capital spending in order to combat inflation, good service has already been rendered. Expansion has also taken place, but the hon. member denies this. To-day the Republic has a modern and comprehensive telecommunications system. Hon. members saw it themselves. We have long distance microwave links between our large cities, which we never had before in our country. The rented telex services also increased from 220 to 3,700. Is that deterioration or stagnation? The hon. member is requesting a comprehensive programme in respect of our tele communications system. After having listened to the hon. member’s argument I am almost compelled to say to him: “Good morning. Did you sleep well? You have been sleeping a long time”. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove has been sleeping a long time. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister have been engaged over the years in planning. It is difficult to plan if one has a limited amount of capital at one’s disposal. That hon. member must admit that over the years this restriction has always been there, or does the hon. member propose that the Government should increase the tariffs or cut down in other spheres. Must we for example cut down on our defence expenditure? Is that what the hon. member suggests? Does the hon. member want salaries to be reduced so that more capital will be made available for telecommunication services? Is that what he wants? We hear nothing from that side; bombastic diatribes are all one hears. As a result of this thorough and timeous planning more than 80 per cent of all the requirements for the Post Office and its related services are being manufactured in South Africa. I am sorry to have to say this, but I am certain that that hon. member and the entire Opposition bitterly regret the fact that so much equipment is being manufactured in this country instead of 80 per cent and more of it being imported from overseas. I believe that they bitterly regret that. But I on the other hand appreciate the planning and the action by the Department in not only attracting industries to South Africa but also making it possible for them to develop. After the changeover of the automatic telex exchanges of East London and Kimberley, all our large cities will have been equipped with these automatic units. Is that not progress? It is planning, and it is the implementation of that planning. The telex exchange at Welkom is being closed, and that in Johannesburg included, and the result of that will be that telex subscribers in the Republic and South-West Africa will be able to communicate directly with one another without the services of manual operators having to be used. Is that not beneficial to the communication system and to our commerce and industry? It has been alleged here that things are going very badly with our telecommunication services, but are these facts not proof to the contrary? Early next year subscripers in South Africa and South-West Africa will be able to dial other countries directly. Does that not also amount to planning and improvement? What is happening to-day, does that not crown all these meritorious attempts on the part of this Department?

But development did not only take place in this direction; provision was also made and planning undertaken for the accommodation of these facilities. In the past between R2 and R3 million per year was made available for buildings, and it is expected that this amount will increase within the next year or three to R8 million per year. The capital value of all our telex services and apparatus and buildings increased from R58 million to R391 million, and that in the days when the Department was still so dependent upon the Treasury, and had to approach it with outstretched hands begging for alms. Alms were given because the Cabinet and the Treasury, in their wisdom, decided that they did not have more money available.

Sir, I asked whether that side advocated tariff increases, but we received no reply. The automatic exchanges increased to 148, the manual exchanges to 1,630. Will that side deny this? Will they deny that these improvements really took place, and that this amounted to expansion of the services. It is being planned to add 35 automatic exchanges with 104,000 lines during the next four years. At the 109 existing automatic exchanges an additional 98,592, lines will be made available. In view of the Post Office’s limited funds and a manpower shortage to boot, every sensible person should be able to express appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the officials of our Posts. We must express our gratitude because they not only spent their time well in rendering good service to the country but they also worked overtime, as a unselfish sacrifice, in order to make those services available. We know that the shortage of capital was the restrictive factor in the past, but I have put forward sufficient reasons to explain why that situation existed.

I now want to ask the hon. Opposition a pertinent question, and I would be pleased if the next speaker on that side would give me a clear reply. Does that side want large amounts to be taken away from Defence and allocated to Posts? Do they want to cut down on salaries? Do they want to increase tariffs? I am asking these things again now, and I would be pleased if hon. members would furnish those replies. Where else will the hon. member and his Party find the funds to institute those so-called full-scale plans, as he put it here, into operation? They cannot be undertaken without money, the capital which must be found. I would therefore appreciate it if the replies can be furnished here. I want to say clearly that we on this side appreciate what has been done for South Africa, although a backlog did develop. But there is no place in South Africa where there is not a telephone service available.

I have repeatedly asked the Opposition certain questions, and I should very much like to have replies to them. If that side wants the amounts voted for Defence to be reduced considerably, then I would like to know why they desire that; they must not merely say that they will do it. If one has adequate funds at one’s disposal then one can plan and spend on a lavish scale, and then one can also plan far in advance, but if the funds are lacking, one’s hands are tied.

I now want to conclude and I want to ask the members to get done with this trivial criticism, criticism which is repeated every year. And what were the fruits of that criticism for that side of the House? They now have one member less in this House. The result of the actions of the hon. member, as well as those of his colleagues, are that the Party as such is steadily deteriorating. To the National Government I say that we sincerely appreciate the excellent service which this Department is rendering to our country. We will never forget the vast amount of overtime which has been worked, and is still being worked. Our country has an excellent telecommunications service, and only the National Party with its conservatism, its planning, and above all its thorough work, could effect this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Harrismith admits that both the present Minister and his predecessor have acknowledged from time to time that there are considerable shortages in the supply of telephones, and he ascribes these shortages to the fact that there has been a lack of capital. However. I think the 72.000 people who are waiting for telephones will read with interest of the opening to-day of a certain international communication link whilst they are Still waiting for telephones in their homes and offices. He also says the Opposition should appreciate the Government’s planning in this matter. I should like to ask him whether 21 years in office is not sufficient time for any government to plan its operations, and that applies also to the Post Office. Then he poses this question to the Opposition, would we wish with a view to providing the necessary capital, to cut defence expenditure and salaries? Our answer to that is very simple to quote what the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said, as reported in Die Burger on 6th December, 1966, when he asked for an increase of 1 cent per local telephone call, which would provide him with between R10 and R14 million per annum. This is what he said:

That was at the end of 1966. I would like to point out that at that stage, with the increase of 1 cent per local telephone call, South Africa’s local telephone calls became the highest in the world. They became three and a half times as expensive as the local telephone calls in Holland, and two and a half times as expensive as those in Sweden. The cost for other countries are, by way of comparison:

That R10 to R14 million which the Minister assured us would be forthcoming as a result of the one cent increase on local telephone charges should provide the capital for the expansion of the telephone service.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has indicated that on this side there will be speakers dealing with each of the provinces. I would like to confine my remarks, therefore, to the Cape Province, and I begin with the Peninsula. On the 2nd August, 1967, Mr. Loftus, the Telephone Manager in Cape Town, said that 31,000 telephones would be provided within three to five years for the Peninsula, and that there would be sufficient to catch up with the present applications. Shortly after that, on the 11th March, a letter appeared in the Cape Argus, which was answered by the Postmaster-General, Mr. Strauss, himself. The letter was from a certain Mr. Sandilands. The Postmaster-General replied that at present (March, 1968) there were 11,000 Peninsula applications in arrear. Then he ascribed the reason for the arrear applications as being:

Then he deals with the programme for the Peninsula and says that within five years a further 45,000 telephones, as opposed to Mr. Loftus’ figures of 31,000 telephones, would be provided. Thereafter in his statement he deals with a basis on which applications are dealt with, because there has been so much criticism as to who gets a telephone and who applies unsuccessfully.

Now I should like to examine some of the reasons given by the Postmaster-General for the backlog. He says that it mainly concerns the question of adequate funds. I have already quoted what the previous Minister had said two years before, namely that by increasing the cost of local telephone calls by one cent, sufficient capital, R10 to R14 million, would be available for the expansion of the telephone services. Therefore I feel that that argument falls away. Secondly, he makes the point that there will be 45,000 telephones provided in the Peninsula within the next five years. But the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said in 1966 (two years before) that the backlog of telephones in the whole of South Africa would be met within five years from then. The Postmaster-General is more cautious, because in his statement he says further that it will be met within five years, and thereafter that the shortage will be gradually eliminated. He refers, and the hon. the Minister so often refers, to the backlog. But what about the natural growth of the population? What about the economic development in the various areas of the Peninsula? They will also require telephone services. The Afrikaanse Sakekamer at Paarl in March of last year was concerned with this matter, and appealed to the Department and the Minister to give urgent attention to the improving of telephone services in the Peninsula. And then, in his Second Reading speech on the Post Office Readjustment Bill, the Minister himself said that an extensive programme of expansion had been planned and that it would take five years to clear up the backlog, the same period the Postmaster expects it to last. Thereafter Mr. Loftus made a statement three or four months later, to be exact in September. He confirmed that there were 11,000 people waiting for telephones in the Peninsula, and ascribed the backlog mainly to the shortage of exchange equipment at certain exchanges and the lack of underground cables generally. That does not tie up with the explanations either from the Postmaster-General or from the Minister. He went on further and quoted the outstanding applications. These are a reflection on the Minister—

He went on to say that equipment on order for new exchanges will provide 13,800 new telephones. He said that there was further equipment on order for the permanent extension to existing telephone exchanges, which will provide another 11.000. My point is that there is talk from the Minister; there are statements by the heads of Departments from time to time, but the people are still waiting for telephones. In the meantime, the outstanding applications for telephones in the Peninsula rose at the end of December of 1967 to 10,862. In 1966 it was 9,790. To-day it is 12,412.

Now briefly, what is the position of the other two large towns of the Cape Province? In East London in 1966 there were 466 outstanding applications. In 1967 there were 931, and at the end of last year the figure was 1.513, a steady increase in the numbers of those waiting for telephones. In Port Elizabeth in 1966, 250 applied for telephones; in 1967 there were 1,770; and in 1968 the figure was 2,831. So it seems that everywhere there is a backlog which is becoming steadily larger in all the main cities in the Cape Province.

Now I should like very briefly to deal with the quality of the existing services, and to ask whether the public is really receiving value for its money. After all, we are paying the highest for local calls anywhere in the world, and we are financing capital expansion of the Post Office by revenue. Look at the letters that appear from time to time in the newspapers, letters about shortages, complaints that business is being delayed that women and children are being left defenceless in their homes at night when their menfolk are away, complaints about the cost of the service, complaints that the costs of telephone calls are not assisting our policy of combating inflation, frequent complaints about the standard of service from call boxes, the fact that telephone receivers are not regularly replaced when they are destroyed, the fact that they are not regularly inspected, the fact that coin boxes very seldom work in public telephone boxes and that money is lost as a result of a subscriber having to make two or three attempts to get through and then gives up in disgust, filth and dirt to be found in the public telephone boxes and that they are not often enough inspected.

Lastly I think there is real substance for a complaint about the standard of the telephone directories. The lay out has been changed in the last issue and the standard and quality of paper that is used, give cause to widespread complaints as well. I think for all of these reasons the hon. member for Orange Grove has been completely justified in moving the motion he did, and I wish to second it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the amendment to the motion as moved by the hon. member here on my right. That motion really consists of two things, the one is the gratitude and appreciation this House expresses to the Government, and secondly to the officials for what has been accomplished in this country in respect of the provision of telephones. Before going any further, however, I should like to return to two points raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member referred to Germiston and said that there were 214 persons who were waiting for telephones. He made this out to be something terrible. Does the hon. member know however that the population of Germiston is 86,314? That means that only .2 per cent of them are waiting for telephones. Throughout the world it is acknowledged that an unemployment figure of 2 per cent is normal. Here it is .2 per cent, and for that member it is abnormal.

The hon. member also stated that South Africa could be compared to Australia and that in Australia 470 telephones were being made per day. I now want to ask the hon. member why he does not give this House the correct information. Why does that hon. member make a statement in which he distorts the truth? The hon. member omitted to state that in this country there are only 3½ million Whites who are manufacturing 240 telephones every day, as against a population of 11,761,000 in Australia, where 470 telephones are being installed per day. Australia has four times the white population of South Africa, and they are only making twice as many telephones per day. In other words, they are only half as productive and efficient as this National Government is. I think that the hon. member ought to thank this Government and these officials for that efficiency and the good service they are providing.

I do not want to go into the hon. member’s argument any further, because I think that these two statements are sufficient to prove how that hon. member merely gropes around for something to say and never has anything positive and constructive to submit to the House. The hon. member always distorts the truth.

I should like to read an extract from the annual report of the Post Office for 1966-’67 to the hon. member. It seems to me the hon. member has never read this annual report. With reference to this I shall go on to show what is being done in this country to make telephones available to the public. In the foreword the Postmaster-General states the following, inter alia—

I would just like to say in passing here that that hon. member is fully aware of the fact that the Post Office transports postal articles daily which one could almost call trash and which is sent to the public. On these postal articles only a half cent or one cent postage is payable, and as a result of these postal articles, which are being transported at a loss, this Department had a deficit of R3 million. This Government did not increase postal tariffs as a result of that type of postal article. The Government’s premise was that the postal service should become even more efficient in order that very inexpensive postal tariffs for South Africa could in that way be retained. Why did the hon. member not rather express his gratitude for that? Why does that hon. member only express contempt for the Post Office? Indirectly he is blaming our officials, running them down and accusing them of poor service. It is they who have to do the work, but there is nothing that that hon. member will say in their favour. The Postmaster-General went on to say—

All this was done in one year, but it appears as if that hon. member did not read this annual report, although he is supplied with a copy. The cash revenue rose to R121,216,204, an increase of R57,730,000 compared to the previous year. Then the Postmaster-General went on to state—

I want to emphasize that this fantastic exchange was planned as long as two years ago. This cable is the longest in the world. The Government, with its Department commenced the planning two years ago. They stated that at the beginning of this year this submarine cable would be taken into use. It was done this morning. In this way I can quote passage after passage in regard to what this Government has undertaken to do and has done. I now challenge that hon. member to prove to us that where undertakings such as this fail, it cannot be ascribed to abnormal circumstances for which the Cabinet and the Department cannot be held responsible. One of the causes in this connection is inflation, but I shall come to that later.

I should now like to go further and discuss the finances of the Post Office. It is stated in the annual report that for the periods 1966-’67 the postal section brought in R30,263,000. The telegraphs section brought in R12,229,000 and the telephones section R78,723,000. That is a total of R121,216,000. Does that hon. member know how many officials there are in this Department who have to handle such an enormous sum of money? Does that hon. member know that the turnover—this is not only the Post Office’s money, but also taxes collected for the State, savings bank money, pensions, and so on—for that year was R787,000,000? Handling such an amount of money is no joke for those people. Since I want to confine myself in particular to the gratitude expressed to our Department in the second leg of the motion of the hon. member for Harrismith, I want to say that we must take a look at what these people are doing for South Africa.

How has the Post Office grown under National Party Government? I think that is a very good question. The turnover I referred to a moment ago was R168,000,000 in 1948, whereas in 1968 it was R834,000,000. In 1948 there were only 220 telex services, as opposed to 3,700 in 1968. The number of telephones in 1948 was 318,000, as opposed to 1,239,000 in 1968. In this way I can mention many other figures, and it will be found that everything has increased fourfold over the same period. During this time however the staff only increased from 25,800 to 49,800. Thus the staff only increased twofold and not fourfold. I now want to ask the hon. member, since the same number of people are now doing twice as much as was previously done, whether that is not productivity and something to be grateful for. I think the hon. member turns a blind eye to these things. Let us look at the planning which is being undertaken in this Department. There was a period 20 years ago which we can compare, but I would prefer to compare the achievements of the National Party with itself, because it is not possible to compare the United Party with the National Party. They are beginning to cross over to such an extent that one cannot draw comparisons any more. Twelve years ago, in 1957, the number of automatic telephone exchanges was 82. There are now 148. That is what this Government has achieved in 12 years. The number of manual telephone exchanges, i.e. 1.803 12 years ago, has been reduced to 1,630. Twelve years ago there were 1,803 manual exchanges, and we have so far reduced this number to 1,630. You know. Sir, that the planning of this Department and the work has made such progress that the manual exchanges are being replaced at a much faster rate than it was possible to do up to the present. We admit that there is a backlog as far as telephones are concerned, but we are grateful for the conditions which have caused this, i.e. the progress in this country. But that side of the House is annoyed if there is progress in South Africa. But those hon. members will sit in those benches forever. We have a backlog in telephone services which is attributable to the tremendous economic progress, and our country has the second highest real growth rate in the world. Is it to be deplored that we are developing so rapidly that we are falling behind? And what about efficiency? I want to return to that. During 1968 this Minister and this Government, in order to further efficiency, proceeded to appoint three deputy postmasters-general in the General Post Office, i.e. for finance and planning, staff and posts, and for telecommunications and technical services, for the sole purpose of furthering efficiency, so that there would be no duplication of work and in order to facilitate matters and render even better services than were already being rendered to the public. In January of this year a further reorganization came into effect, which meant that seven regional directors have now been appointed. With all these senior posts which are being created the staff have more opportunities of promotion. Is the hon. member opposed to that? Does he want the Government to create more senior posts, yes or no?

I am satisfied with that.

I am pleased, because since I came to this House, this is the first thing with which that hon. member has been satisfied. And from 1st April salary increases will be introduced, and the hon. member knows that. And, thanks to the former Minister of Posts, the Post Office is now independent. We know that the present Minister piloted through that change while the opposite side went along with it half-heartedly. We are now on the eve of the Post Office as a business undertaking which will produce results. That hon. member’s exclusive purpose with this motion to-day is to enable him to say something at least before he watches us rectifying everything in South Africa as far as Posts are concerned. In a year’s time all that hon. member will be able to do is to say thank you for everything he has received. That hon. member is so fond of complaining, but I wonder whether he has a telephone in his constituency so that his voters can get in touch with him.

I just want to mention a few figures. What are we spending in South Africa as far as the Government is concerned? In 1946 the white population of the country totalled 2,372.000 and the number of telephones during that time totalled 264.037. That means for every nine Whites in 1946 there was one telephone. That is the “excellent” service which South Africa bad been receiving from the Government of that side of the House. In 1960 our white population totalled 3,080,000, but then we had 858,124 telephones. That gives us a telephone for every 3.6 Whites, instead of every nine. In 1967, with 3,563,000 Whites, we had 1,179,000 telephones. That is to say, for every third white person in South Africa there was a telephone. Now I am asking that hon. member to mention one country in the world to me where every third person has a telephone.

In America. There are 98 million.

Let us consider the economically active persons in South Africa, those people who work. Again I am only taking the Whites. In 1946 there were 887,800 of them, and for every 3.4 of them there was one telephone. In 1960, under this Government, there were 1,151,000 such persons, and there were 858,124 telephones, for every 1.3 economically active persons there was therefore a telephone, whereas it had been 3.4 under this Government. No, I think this Government has done its share. We admit that there is a shortage of telephones. In 1937 there was a shortage of 7,000, and in 1947 there was a shortage of 65,000. This Government reduced that figure, and in 1962 it was 9,500, but as a result of this fantastic development in South Africa, it shot up in 1968 to 62,750 and recently, on 31st December, 1968, it was 72,000. That is a drop in the bucket. If one takes the population and the economic growth into consideration, this is not such a great backlog which has to be made up. Once everything is in order, the National Party will simply rectify it one morning before breakfast. There are only 18 countries in the entire world which have more telephones than South Africa, and that in spite of the fact that there are only 3.5 million Whites in this country who have to take care of 18 million people, and in spite of the great distances we have in our country. We cannot compare Holland or Belgium with South Africa as far as telecommunications are concerned. I do not want to quote the figures used by the hon. member for Harrismith, but in conclusion I merely want to supply these figures, and these are connected with the estimates of this House, the revenue as well as the loan estimates during the past few years. In 1946-’47 the total estimates amounted to R19,800,000, and for that population of 2,372.000 it worked out at R8.4 per white person. Taking it in the same way, it works out that in 1957-’58 it was R24 per person. It increased from R8.4 amongst those people to R24 under this Government. In 1967-’68 this Government was spending R37 per white person on telephone services, etc. And what is the figure now, since the Post Office has become independent, compared to last year? For the financial year ending 31st March, it has shot up to R48.10 per white person. That is what this Government is doing for our people to supply them with telephones.

In conclusion I just want to say that I support this amendment of the hon. member for Harrismith, and I want to express my thanks to the Government, and particularly to our officials, for what has been done in the past, for what they are doing now, and particularly for the thorough planning and the work which they have already set in motion to make up in two ticks the small backlog which South Africa has as far as telephones are concerned.

We on this side of the House have at no time criticized the personnel of the Post Office. We, as well as hon. members opposite, appreciate the services they are rendering to South Africa in difficult circumstances. Hon. members keep on mentioning the cable that came into operation this morning between South Africa and overseas. It is a laudable event and we appreciate it as well as anybody else, but the trouble is that we are referring to the demand for telephones and the shortage of telephones in South Africa. With that I would like to localize it to my own area in Pietermaritzburg.

We asked for an extension to our telephone exchange in Pietermaritzburg. In 1965 the Estimates showed an amount for this of R200,000. In 1967-’68, in the Estimates, this amount was approved of, and during 1968-’69 there was a revised Estimate, when it was increased to R280,000. The expenditure to 31st March, 1968, on this work was R49,000. The expenditure for 1968-’69 was R160,000, leaving a balance of R59,000. When it was first mooted in 1965, it was then said that it was an urgent necessity, but three years later it had not been commenced with. It was only during 1967-’68 that it was commenced with. On 23rd August, 1966, the then Minister, not this hon. Minister—this Minister inherited all this—informed me that it would be completed in the next few years. In a question across the floor I asked him what he meant by “a few years” and he said between 1½ and 2 years. Pietermaritzburg is a border area, one of particular importance, according to the Minister of Community Development. The tempo of expansion is ceaseless, with the present industrial development. Thousands of flats and dwelling-houses and businesses are continuously rising, and telephones, needless to say, are of the utmost necessity. On 12th March, 1968, the Minister informed me that the new exchange would not be able to meet the backlog of telephones. On 5th June, 1967, the hon. the Minister informed the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) by letter, No. M.1/2/67, that the extension to the exchange under construction had been planned to make provision for approximately 17 years. I should like to read that letter—

He states that there will be an increase of 2,000 lines, bringing it up to 3,800 lines. On the 7th February, 1969, the Minister informed me that the new exchange would now provide for 5,286 additional lines instead of 3,328 and that the exchange was expected to meet all requirements until mid-1973, based on present development. Sir, there is a slight difference between about four years and 17 years. To me this is now becoming a Chinese puzzle and the hon. the Minister must please elucidate and give me the correct position and the figures.

Sir, the next matter that worries me is the disparity in telephone charges between Durban and Pietermaritzburg and Pietermaritzburg and Durban. If a Pietermaritzburg subscriber has four calls, one each of three, six, nine and 12 minutes to Durban, it costs him 42 cents more for 30 minutes duration than the Durban man has to pay to Pietermaritzburg for the same time. On the 5th March, 1968, the Minister informed me that this was merely of a transitional nature and would be eliminated as fast as possible. Surely, Sir, this is now becoming a serious matter. We cannot continue fleecing the public for another two years in this way, according to the Minister’s reply on the 19th March, 1968. I sincerely suggest to the hon. the Minister that arrangements be set in motion to equalize the charges between the two cities as soon as possible.

Sir, whilst we are on the question of exchanges, the Minister informed me that the question of the take-over of the Durban Corporation’s private telephone system was under consideration. As a result, the following article appeared in the Daily News of the 14th February, 1969—

I think that the hon. the Minister should investigate this position very urgently and give it his immediate attention to avoid losing these irreplaceable senior telephone technicians.

Then, Sir, I want to mention to the hon. the Minister a case of my own. On the 14th December, my wife telephoned and sent a phonogram to a wedding couple, friends of ours, at Sasolburg. She asked the exchange—this was at about 10 o’clock in the morning—whether the phonogram would still be delivered because it was a Saturday. The operator said “Yes, certainly” and she took down the phonogram. About three or four days later I received a notification from the Post Office to the effect that this telegram had not been delivered because addressee left without leaving his address. Sir, I must congratulate this official on his sense of humour, because all newly married couples leave after their wedding without leaving an address. Sir, this does not assist the Department in giving service to the public. I shudder to think how many telegrams were not delivered to the town hall at Sasolburg on that particular day. We were assured that the telegram would reach Sasolburg in ample time. It was not delivered, most likely because it was a Saturday and they probably do not deliver telegrams on Saturday afternoons. If there is no provision for this vital service on Saturday afternoons then I wonder how many telegrams to young couples in South Africa who marry on Saturday afternoons—and there must be hundreds—remain undelivered. This particular wedding was a very big one. I believe over 500 guests attended the function in the town hall. There was really no excuse for not delivering that telegram.

Why did you not send the telegram on the Friday afternoon?

Sir, talking about telephones, I wonder how many existing telephone subscribers cannot get through to main lines. A friend of mine in Johannesburg told me that it was a physical impossibility to get through to the Provincial Administration building in Pretoria. You are very lucky if you get through in five hours’ time. What is causing the trouble is that the exchange in the building is too small to handle the traffic. I merely want to put forward a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in this regard; I am not trying to criticize him. I wonder whether he cannot take control of these new buildings and see to it that before any telephone system is installed in the building the Postmaster-General approves of the system and is satisfied that the exchange can handle the traffic. My friend also tells me that it is hopeless dialling 900, a line to the Eastern Transvaal; you can never get through.

I should like to associate myself with the appeals which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) has addressed to the hon. the Minister, in regard to settling the problems concerning the employees of the Durban Municipal Telephone Department. I trust that he will sympathetically consider their just pleas.

Then, I would like to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Sunnyside. Sir, I am quite convinced that the hon. member for Sunnyside is safely esconced in his white ivory tower, and when he talks about a ratio of one telephone to nine persons, it is quite clear that he is only thinking of one section of the community. He forgets that we in South Africa live in—call it what you will—a multinational or a multi-racial community. He apparenty disregards the shortages which may exist in so far as a large section or our community is concerned. I want to quote just one figure to show that his ratio cannot be regarded as an accurate assessment of the overall position. If we take the non-white areas surrounding Durban—a Bantu, an Indian and a Coloured residential area, one of each—we find that in the last four years, from 1964 to 1967, 155 telephones were installed in these areas and that the number of applications which could not be met was 412. I estimate the population in these areas to be roughly 300,000, and I make the ratio of telephones to population one in two thousand! Sir, these are areas in which you are dealing with urbanized people who need telephones, who apply for telephones and cannot get them.

Then. Sir, I was interested in the remarks made by the Minister during the recess, when he gave certain details concerning the telephone position since 1948. He said that the business turnover of the telephone department since 1948 had increased five times. He spoke with pride of the fact that the number of actual telephones had increased four times. He was also proud to say that the number of staff had only doubled, and he said that this was “evidence of the high measure of efficiency in the service”. Sir, I think that remark is unjustified in view of the Department’s failure to recruit and to keep the necessary technical staff and, secondly, in view of the attitude that they adopt in regard to the development of potential sources of labour in this country. I believe that their whole outlook, on that basis, is unrealistic. I believe that the position is grim and I think if we look at it from that unrealistic angle, we can describe the Minister’s statement as Grimm’s fairy tales.

Sir, I want to join hon. members who have taken part in this debate in paying sincere tribute to the existing staff. I believe they are doing a magnificent job under extremely difficult circumstances. I record with appreciation the courtesy and the helpfulness which have always been exhibited, particularly in cases of emergency. But, Sir, there is one “but”: Provided you can raise them on the telephone! There is such a shortage of staff that there are certain times of the day when one can sit on the telephone for minutes on end before getting through to the operator. I believe we are in a telephone crisis and I want to put what I believe to be a practical suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I believe that he should address an appeal to all telephone subscribers. I do not know whether other hon. members have had the experience which I have had. You may have had it, Mr. Speaker. When you pick up the telephone to make a social call you get a juvenile voice at the other end; you then say “I would like to speak to mummy”. The reply is: “Mummy is out; she has gone to fetch daddy.” When you ask, “When is mummy due back?” you get the reply, “I don’t know”. Sir, I believe that this is happening day after day in thousands of telephone systems. I believe it is causing unnecessary congestion and I believe it is causing an unnecessary metering of calls. My suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that an appeal should be made to users to adopt a more realistic attitude towards telephones. I realize that it is necessary for people to contact their homes when they know that perhaps only their children or their servants are there, but I believe it would not take very much imagination or ingenuity to introduce a code call so that the servant or the child will know that when the telephone rings in a certain way they must answer the telephone and that otherwise they must ignore it. This will save subscribers a great deal of frustration. It will save them the irritation of making a telephone call only to be told that “mummy is out” and that nobody knows when she will be back. I believe that such a system could help to overcome the present crisis, particularly in the towns and built-up areas.

Other hon. members on our side of the House have dealt with the position on a provincial basis. I wish to deal primarily with the position in the Durban perimeter. I believe that we, in the Durban area, are in a unique position, because the main Durban business complex is still in the hands of the municipal telephone service, while the outer perimeter is mainly in the hands of the State. I do not say that the local municipal service is perfect, but I believe that it gives a better service than that which people in the perimeter areas of Durban are enjoying from the State. When it comes to the transfer of telephones from one home to another, when a person moves, this can be done reasonably simply in the Durban area. But this is not so easy in the surrounding area where the responsibility is that of the State. This problem which I, as a public representative have, is shared by some of my colleagues who, too, have parts of their constituency in the areas where subscribers are accommodated by municipal and by Government services. I want to give you an example. In my constituency in Berea, where in Glenmore/Howardene/Ridge Road/Sherwood area … the telephone subscribers are attached to the Government exchanges in the government areas. It is from these areas that the complaints come. You might want to know what the complaints are and whether it is just about telephones that are needed for social calls. Most of the complaints which I receive are either for urgent business reasons or for matters of health. I believe that to-day we have to accept that the telephone is a vital necessity for modern living. I know that allocations are made on priority bases. I think that the very fact that we have to have this priority basis, highlights the bad planning that existed in the past. Here again I want to reiterate the courtesy of the management in trying to deal impartially and helpfully with these questions of priority. The difficulties of these managements have been created and aggravated by this Government.

There are some specific difficulties to which I wish to refer. Firstly, there is the question of “stork telephones”. This I believe is the common terminology for a telephone provided specifically for a woman who is about to have a baby. I understand that expectant mothers in certain areas in the Durban complex have no hope of getting a stork telephone, no matter how important it may be to them and to their immediate family. Unless there is doctor’s priority in connection with a particular pregnancy, the “stork telephone” is just not provided.

Then we have the question of sickness and old age which also can be serious. I understand the situation and the position in regard to priorites, but I wonder how many disgruntled applicants are prepared to accept the refusal of telephones on the grounds that their priorities are not sufficiently urgent.

Then there is the difficult position where senior, and essential members of staff, of a business organization, who are on call at home during nights and week-ends, cannot be accommodated on the telephone exchange. They are unable to get shared-line service and are also unable to be contacted except physically by sending a person round to their homes. I wish to refer briefly to this shared-line service. I realize that in many instances it does provide a partial solution to a problem. Where subscribers are prepared to share the line, it is a useful service. Nevertheless, it does not answer all the problems. I want to mention some of these problems from my own experience; human problems which can be multiplied a thousand times every day and in every part of South Africa. Take the case of a piano tuner whose business was in his home. He needed no workshop for his equipment; he needed no office. All he needed was a fixed home address and a telephone, so that he could be called out to ply his business in the homes where the pianos were. What was the position? For months he tried to get a telephone on a business priority basis. He could not get a telephone and in the end he had to rely on getting messages from a well meaning person in a municipal zone, who had a telephone.

I also want to refer to another man who was in the municipal zone and had had a telephone for 39 years. He moved to another part of my constituency which was just outside the municipal zone, and therefore under Government control. He wished to start as an industrial specialist consultant. At this stage of his career he had no need for an office. He could not get his telephone on a priority basis when he wanted it. Here, I think, is an even more glaring case of a person who is desperate. I refer to the owner of an established firm. He decided to move from the central city to a more outlying area, the Mayville area, in my constituency. When, in 1968, he made arrangements about his new premises, there was a telephone on the premises. He planned his move for February, 1969. When he spoke to the previous lessee of the premises, this man went down to the telephone department in Pine Street and he was assured that there would be no problems. Then the telephone was removed. On 17th December, 1968, this businessman addressed an application indicating that he required a telephone from the 15th January, because he would be moving to his new premises shortly after that. On 14th January—and I have the correspondence here—he received a letter regretting that there was no spare lines. At this stage he appealed to me and I contacted the department. The department was most sympathetic, but their hands were tied. They confirmed that there were no spare lines. There was no possibility of a shared service, because all the lines in that particular area already had switchboards. So, it was physically impossible to have a shared service. When I asked the sixty-four-thousand dollar question, as to when a new cable would be available and when service could be given, I was told that there were no plans to instal a new cable. I now want to quote from this man’s letter to me. It is a desperate letter; an appeal—

What kind of business do they have?

Not a crayfish business.

What kind of a business? No, not a crayfish business, but a business built up by hard and honest work. In the same area, it happened that when a certain man, planning to put up a R200,000 property to transfer his business activities, heard of this difficulty, he immediately felt that he would have to reconsider the situation.

Now I want to come to the Pinetown area. I feel very sorry for the hon. member for Pinetown. He inherited something from me. It is none of my making, but due to the delimitation, a certain section of the Westville area, which I had had the honour to serve, was transferred to Pinetown. All the troubles which I had had for years only became more and more aggravated, with the result that the hon. member for Pinetown is a most disgruntled person and a most dissatisfied member.

As far as the Westville position is concerned, I know that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor indicated that there were certain plans in hand for Westville. It was just plans which have not materialized yet. From what I gather from the hon. member there are no signs really of early relief. The position is that there are 800 waiting applicants in the Westville area. They may expect telephones towards the middle of 1969. Further relief for one of the rapidly growing residential areas in Durban, will have to wait for the 1971-’72 programme. Completion of those plans will probably take place in 1972. What about Pinetown itself? I would say Pinetown is possibly one of the most rapidly growing industrial and residential areas in the Republic.

They have a good member!

The hon. member says they have a good member, and that I support. However, there, too, there are no signs of any early relief. The service for 500 applicants has been delayed because of cable construction work, which I say is a further example of the shortage of labour to do the cable construction work.

The hon. member for Durban (North) also has a sad tale of woe to tell us, and I believe he could even more eloquently tell us the sad saga of Gen-Ashley, La Lucia and Sea Cow Lake.

In Glen Ashley everyone has telephones.

Ah, the hon. member for Brakpan has a pull. Anyone who knows the topography of Durban and its racial groupings will realize that development in Durban must take place in certain main directions, and it does not take a very brilliant man to be able to tell in which directions. It must be either to the south, to the west or to the north. The hon. member for Durban (North) is one of the most hard-pressed people in this House, because the hon. member for Orange Grove has given me certain figures which indicate the following.

They must be misleading.

These are the Minister’s figures, is that a reflection on your Minister? We have accepted these figures. I only read what is written, and as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, these are the exchanges which have been closed, and the figures I will now give indicate the number of applications which cannot be met. In Amanzimtoti there are 931, Durban (North)—1,003, Fynnland—279, Hillcrest—294, Kloof—298, Overport—560, Pinetown—1,259. One has to add to the hop. member for Pinetown’s troubles, the question of Kloof and Hillcrest as well. In Rossburgh the shortage is 1,883, Wentworth—1,268. I referred to La Lucia and the facts of La Lucia make very sad reading. I know that in desperation the residents of that area drew up a petition, a petition which I believe—and the hon. member for Durban (North) can correct me if I am wrong—bore the stamp of approval of the local authority, because they too were absolutely desperate and fully aware of the needs of the residents. As far as I could ascertain from a rough check this petition carries over 150 names, and 93 of these people said their telephones were required for business purposes, whilst the balance were required for business and personal reasons. Of the 150 signatories, 93 said that the lack of telephones at La Lucia hampered their businesses. Where is the priority? Now we find—no doubt due to the efforts of the hon. member for Durban (North)—that the position is a little more hopeful. The previous Minister indicated that equipment needed to meet this crisis would be ordered on the 1971-’72 Estimates and thereafter some provision would be made, but now, in view of the crisis, of the emergency, the position has improved just a little. It is hoped there will be temporary exchange lines for 400 subscribers in 1970. That is another whole year.

I want to appeal to his Minister to do something about this situation. I know he has taken over a difficult portfolio. I know that many of his problems arise from the unrealistic attitude which was adopted by his predecessor. Moreover, I believe the whole Cabinet is to blame for this state of affairs. I believe the hon. the Minister has been given a difficult task. I do hope he does his best and makes the best of a bad job.

Mr. Speaker, the old saying that the leopard does not change its spots is still true to-day. The hon. member for Orange Grove again showed us this afternoon that he will never outgrow his inborn characteristics. In 1946 the hon. member wrote as follows in Die Kruithoring (translation)—

What is the point?

If you would only listen! Hon. members opposite expect me to reply to them, but they do not give me a chance to do so, and I have only 30 minutes in which to do so. The hon. member for Orange Grove declared that we now have the most serious telephone situation that we have ever had in South Africa. He did so twice in the Press and he repeated the statement here this afternoon.

This afternoon the hon. member added this, because he knew that he was going to be taken to task for his statement. The worst situation in the history of South Africa, he said. This afternoon he said, “the worst situation barring one previous instance”. Why did he not say this to the Press as well? Why does he mislead the country outside where he cannot be called to account, and why does he come and state the position correctly here in this House? The situation developed until there was a shortage of 102,000 in 1951, not because of neglect on the part of this Government, but because of neglect on the part of the previous Government.

Who was in power in 1951? *

You have not been listening; if you would only listen, you would be able to make a reasonable interjection. I do not feel like replying to nonsensical interjections.

I want to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for the very fine compliment he paid me this afternoon. He in fact suggested in his speech that in the past year, since taking over this portfolio, I should have taken steps to make up the telephone backlog like a magician with a magic wand. I regard this as a fine compliment. However, I want to say to the hon. member that even though he has a wonderful opinion of me, I am not really as wonderful as he apparently thinks I am. It is impossible for a Minister in the space of one year to make up a telephone backlog which has built up over a number of years.

Over 21 years, and it is getting worse.

No, not over 21 years. I shall now tell the hon. member why this telephone shortage has built up over the past number of years. The hon. member is obviously not aware of the comprehensive steps being taken at present. I am now going to return the compliment which the hon. member paid me this afternoon, i.e. that I am so wonderful that I should have rectified this position in the space of one year, and I am now going to discuss his motion which is before the House. I am not going to do as he did—he did not speak about his motion.

The hon. member’s motion reads that this House is of the opinion that the steps taken by the Government are inadequate and unrealistic. Sir, did it strike you that the hon. member did not refer here to a single step taken by the Government and the Department as an inadequate and unrealistic one. He did not mention a single thing, but I am going to mention them for him. Before doing so, I first want to tell him what the reason is for the backlog which has built up during the past years.

It is a well-known fact that since Union in 1910 the Post Office experienced problems, under the Public Service system of financing and administration, in satisfying all the requirements of the public in all respects. In spite of the fact that one commission of inquiry after another recommended that the Post Office be placed on an independent basis, in spite of the fact that commerce and industry emphasized this all along over the years, no previous Government proceeded to grant independence to the Post Office. If blame must be apportioned, it must fall on all previous governments, but not on this Government, which finally said, “Look, we are now going to grant independence to the Post Office.” [Interjections.] That side opposed it all those years. The greatest single problem which contributed to the backlog was the fact that the Post Office could not utilize its funds like a business undertaking in order to meet the demand for its services. Under the Public Service system of financing the Post Office could never be sure in advance what capital it would be able to obtain from year to year for the development of its telephone services. This made long-term planning impossible, and the hon. member for Orange Grove knows that this is the position. In the years of steady economic growth long-term planning was possibly not so necessary and so essential for the Post Office, but in the years of unparalleled, tremendous economic growth long-term planning became an urgent necessity. This tremendous economic growth has as hon. members know, continued to take place at an extremely rapid rate in South Africa during the past seven, eight years, thanks to the wise financial policy and the vigorous action taken by this Government in the interests of South Africa. To a large extent this economic development is attributable to and has been stimulated by this Government. Unfortunately progress also brings its problems along with it. The Opposition understand absolutely nothing about this because they know nothing of progress, they only know retrogression, such as they experienced once again last week. The rapid economic growth led to the problem of inflation in South Africa, and as a result Government expenditure had to be curtailed. As a matter of fact, the Opposition have continually been urging this for the past number of years and have said that the Government should curtail its expenditure. Inflation has consequently entailed the curtailment of capital expenditure and the capital services of the Post Office. This had to be done at the very time when the Post Office had the most need of the capital for its development programme to meet the demand for its services in a rapidly developing country such as we have here in South Africa. Therein lies the real cause of the backlog in our telephone services, together with the fact that the Post Office only gained its independence on the 1st of July last year. It has nothing to do with poor administration, it has nothing to do with poor planning, it has nothing to do with inefficiency on the part of the staff, as the hon. member for Berea wanted to suggest. It has nothing at all to do with a Door Minister or a poor Government. It has everything to do with a good Government which has governed the country so excellently, which has unleashed such economic growth and development in recent years that bottle-necks have developed, and one of these bottle-necks is the matter under discussion this afternoon, i.e. telephone services. The Government does not shrink back in the face of these bottle-necks, and consequently active steps have already been taken to make up the backlog. As a result of the vigorous action taken by this Government in successfully combating the danger of inflation, more generous provision can fortunately be made once again and capital can be made available for the expansion programme in respect of our telecommunications service. I said last year, but it seems to me as though hon. members were not listening, that it would take time to make up the backlog in our telecommunications services. I takes up to three years before an automatic telephone exchange which has been planned, can be put into service. There must be the necessary buildings, and the necessary apparatus must be obtained and installed. In other words, the services which are expected this year, while I am Minister, and in the succeeding two years, are still those services which were planned under the previous uncertain system of capital provision.

Is the shortage therefore going to increase further? *

I think it would be better if the hon. member just listened carefully. The services planned since the Post Office obtained its independence are services which can only be expected to yield results in the period 1971 to 1972 at the earliest. [Interjections.] I said this last year as well. There is nothing new in this. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs of those hon. members said in 1946 that the backlog would be made up by 1951. This must also be kept in mind, because 1971-’72 will mark the beginning of the real elimination of the backlog in our telephone services.

I now come to the motion which the hon. member introduced but which he did not discuss. He did not demonstrate to the House and to the country outside that the “steps taken by the Government …” are … inadequate and unrealistic”. He did not even refer to a single step taken in the past year since the Post Office obtained its independence. I am sure that if the hon. member was aware of it he would perhaps have waited until the Post Office Budget was presented, in a month’s time. I can understand why the hon. member did not wait for the budget, because heaven knows the United Party needs propaganda as no party in South Africa has ever needed it. The hon. member wants to make as much propaganda as possible for his Party out of this shortage of telephones. The hon. member admits that the steps taken during the past year will only show their effect in a few years’ time. Since the effect of the steps taken in the past year since the Post Office gained its independence, will only be evident in two or three years’ time, how can the hon. member describe those steps in advance as inadequate and unrealistic? These are wild and irresponsible assertions which the hon. member has made. He cannot support them with facts and realities. I want to explain to the hon. member what efficient and comprehensive steps have been taken and have been planned to make up the shortage of telephones and to meet the demands of the public. The telecommunications capital programme consists basically of two things, i.e. increasing the capacity of and modernizing the telecommunications system, and, secondly, the utilization of the extra capacity to supply services to new applicants. While the modernization of the system, i.e. the replacement of manual exchanges by automatic exchanges and the introduction of automatic trunk dialling, is improving the quality of the service, extra capacity is also employed for the purpose of granting relief at overloaded exchanges, for example, it is only in the first part of the programme, i.e. the increasing of capacity and modernization, that planning according to specific projects is involved. The second part of the programme, i.e. the utilization of the capacity, is actually routine work. It consists of the annual installation of thousands upon thousands of telephones in houses and offices. It does require funds, it does require labour, but it does not require the kind of planning which the first part of the programme requires. For the execution of this capital expansion programme of the Post Office certain factors have to be present. The five most important requirements for the execution of the capital programme comprise the following: Firstly, the provision of sufficient funds with which to finance expansion programme; secondly, the availability of apparatus and equipment with which the work must be done; thirdly, the availability of manpower that can do the work; fourthly, efficient control and administration; and, fifthly, efficient planning, and efficient planning includes a thorough knowledge of the problem and of the bottle-necks so that the programme may be planned in such a way that the quickest relief can be provided for the largest possible number of bottle-necks. Obviously the planning must take future expansion into account, so that further bottle-necks will not develop and so that the requirements of a growing economy can be satisfied. In a period of backlog in respect of telephone services, there must obviously be a heavy demand for extra capacity and a growing demand for more services. The further requirement in respect of the execution of the capital programme is of necessity the speeding-up of that capital services programme. All possible steps are being taken to speed up the execution of the capital services programme so that the backlog can be made up and the demand for new services be satisfied, as far as possible. It is evidently these steps which the hon. member for Orange Grove found to be unsatisfactory and described in his motion as inadequate and unrealistic. The hon. member never got that far in his speech. I now want to mention the steps which have been taken since the Post Office gained its independence. Let us deal first with the provision of funds, the funds which are necessary to finance the expansion. I have already indicated how the new independent basis of the Post Office and the successful combating of inflation, made greater Government expenditure on capital services possible. On the Estimates for the present financial year, i.e. 1968-’69, an amount of R35.5 million was voted for the capital expenditure of the Post Office. Do you know. Sir, this represents the largest single amount voted in any one year for the capital expenditure of the Post Office in the entire history office Post Office since 1910. I should specifically like to know from the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he considers this amount as being inadequate and unrealistic.

Judging by the results, yes!

The hon. member cannot say that that is so, judging by the results; after all, I indicated to him that a backlog that had been built up over a number of years could not be made up in the space of one year. Surely the hon. member knows this to be the case. [Interjections.] In other words, these steps are adequate and realistic.

You have had 21 years. *

Here the largest amount in the Post Office’s history is being utilized in one year and the hon. members want to describe it as being inadequate and unrealistic! But do the Opposition no longer remember what their standpoint was over the past years in connection with Government expenditure? Their standpoint was that the Government was spending too much, that the Government was causing inflation. In other words, if the Government had listened to the Opposition, R35.5 million would not have been voted on the Estimates, but much less.

Now the hon. the Minister is really talking nonsense!

That is what the hon. member for Hillbrow says now, but that is precisely how the hon. members on the other side argue.

It just shows you what is wrong with your thinking.

But that is what has been wrong with your thinking for a long time, i.e. that on the one hand you want the services, but on the other hand you want less money to be spent!

Secondly, let us look at the availability of the apparatus and equipment. Over a number of years it has been Post Office policy to give preference to locally manufactured apparatus and equipment. The Post Office was to a large extent the stimulus behind the growth of the telecommunications industry in South Africa; an industry which is to-day able to manufacture the major portion of the equipment locally; an industry which has made an important contribution to the economic growth and development of South Africa. Does the Opposition find fault with this? Does the Opposition find it unrealistic and inadequate? However, it takes the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry a few years to execute orders for the majority of apparatus and equipment. Just as impossible as it was in the past for the Post Office to achieve long-term planning, just as difficult was it to place orders a long time in advance, because they did not know whether the capital would be available when the orders had to be executed. Consequently we will have to wait for the equipment, since it is not simply readily available. Although the position is constantly being watched. I am satisfied that there are no other suppliers who can deliver the equipment more rapidly. The equipment can only be manufactured on order and it takes time to execute those orders. I should like to know from the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he considers this as being inadequate and unrealistic?

What quantity did the Post Office order?

I want to know whether our plans to obtain this apparatus and equipment are unrealistic and inadequate.

But what quantity was ordered.?

No, wait a moment. I want to tell the hon. member that he can make a positive contribution here. He can now tell us what adequate and realistic action to take to speed up delivery of our apparatus and equipment. I would heartily welcome it if the hon. member could tell me how it could be delivered more rapidly. There can be just as much money as is needed; there can be just as much apparatus and equipment as are needed; it still does not help us if there is not sufficient manpower to do the work.

This brings me to the third requirement for the execution of the capital programme. This is in fact where, as in nearly every other field, one’s ability to carry out an expansion programme rapidly is limited by a manpower shortage. In this respect the Post Office is no exception. Certain steps have already been taken to combat this problem; other steps will follow shortly. The hon. member must simply wait until the Budget is presented on the 19th March to hear what they are. But I want to mention two steps which have already been taken. In my opinion the most important step which has been taken in order to combat this problem, is the decision last year by the Government to separate the Post Office staff from the Public Service. I shall give notice tomorrow of legislation to separate the payment and service conditions of the Post Office altogether from the Public Service.

Will it then be adequate?

Is it adequate? The Post Office will be separated from the Public Service altogether. No greater separation of the Post Office from the Public Service can be achieved than is made possible by this legislation. Is that adequate?

Yes, but I want to see the legislation first.

The hon. member is at least saying that it is adequate. I am making progress with the hon. member. The hon. member has now yielded here. At least one adequate realistic step has now been taken here.

That is exactly what the hon. the Minister said last year.

This is the most adequate and realistic step which the Post Office has yet taken. Sir, in order further to accelerate the rate at which telephone services are provided, and at the same time to combat the problem of a staff shortage to some extent, it has been decided to have the installation of certain automatic exchanges done on contract by the official suppliers of telecommunications equipment. The contractors will use only their own staff. This means that the Department’s trained technical personnel will then be available for other essential installation work and maintenance services. This will mean a saving of personnel to the Post Office. I want to ask the hon. member: Is this an inadequate or unrealistic step?

You are doing what we suggested long ago.

If the position is as the hon. member suggests, and if we are doing everything they have allegedly told us to do, why does he introduce such a motion, i.e. that the steps which have been taken are inadequate and unrealistic? [Interjection.] No, that hon. member should not betray his ignorance in that way. He has been out of the country for a few months. For at least three months he was out of touch with what was happening here. However, the hon. member for Orange Grove was here. I concede that he did not, as has been his custom in the past, issue a statement to the Sunday Times each week during the recess in connection with anything about which he knows nothing, because his place has been taken up in that connection by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the reorganization of the Post Office administration which has been brought about by means of a new classification. Three posts of deputy postmaster-general have been created. A specific task has been allotted to each of them. This was one of my first steps as Minister. I shall explain the purpose of this, and this brings me to efficient control and efficient administration. The three Deputy Postmasters-General together with the Postmaster-General will constitute the administration of the Department, and they will accept the major responsibilities in respect of the rapid expansion and improvement of Post Office services. Secondly, they will be collectively and individually responsible for efficient financial control and properly co-ordinated planning to ensure good service. Thirdly, they will ensure proper and adequate service, as well as effective utilization of manpower and increase of productivity. Again I want to know from the hon. member whether this is an unrealistic and inadequate step. I get no reply. The hon. member has no views on it. I have carried this organization through further, also to bring about efficient control and administration. A regional organization has been introduced for the Post Office. Instead of having 19 separate divisional heads throughout the country, as before, only seven regional organizations have now been created, each with a director at its head. There is a two-fold justification for this, i.e. firstly to co-ordinate the Department’s decentralized executive activities at the respective centres, thereby bringing about greater efficiency as well as an overall saving, and secondly to reinforce the decentralized administration organization to such an extent that Head Office can be freed of routine duties by means of the delegation of authority. Specifically in respect of telecommunications services it was necessary for the executive technical services on the one hand and operational services on the other which are responsible to the public, to be combined under one head. This has now been done in the various regions. I now want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove: Is this an inadequate or unrealistic step?

Why has the shortage increased?

Sir, the hon. member has a bee in his bonnet about the shortage. He should rather think about the shortage in his own party. Perhaps he will then be able to offer them a solution. I am now discussing the hon. member’s motion. The motion declares that the steps which I as Minister have taken on behalf of the Government, are inadequate and unrealistic. I am discussing this now. But the hon. member is apparently obsessed with the shortage of members on that side of the House, which now has to work harder as a result of the fact that there are so few of them.

Sir, I want to go further. Effective planning is necessary. It is a requirement for the execution of an expansion programme. Only by means of effective planning can one ensure that the expansion of services satisfies needs where needs exist. I am purposely mentioning planning last of all, because before one can plan, all the other factors must be present. We must have the necessary capital, we must have the equipment, we must have manpower that can do the work, we must have efficient control and efficient administration. Only then, when one knows the problems that exist, can planning be undertaken.

Have you got a long-term plan yet? *

I already had one last year. I mentioned it last year. The hon. member will find it in last year’s Hansard. [Interjections.] For efficient planning efficient administration and control are a prerequisite. Planning is nothing new to the Post Office. We already planned as far as planning could be properly undertaken under the old dispensation. Because planning was undertaken under the old dispensation in the Post Office, a capital programme exists for the expansion of telephone services. I mentioned this last year. The hon. member may look it up. On this occasion I want to say that good progress is being made with the execution of this capital programme. This capital programme is not being carried out at a slower rate than was planned. In fact it is being carried out more rapidly. Does this satisfy the hon. member? He does not know about it, because the Estimates have not yet been presented, but at this stage already he moves a motion that the steps which have been taken are inadequate. He cannot even see the results yet. He has not yet seen the picture as a whole. [Interjection.] No, the hon. member has had enough time. He must keep quiet now. Give me a chance as well. The hon. member is condemning in advance the steps which have been taken. He is condemning, them before he has seen the whole picture. He allows himself to be misled by what hon. members tell him, for example about how they have occasional difficulties with a telephone call or a telegram. If I, as Minister, have to give my personal attention to every telegram and telephone difficulty, this shortage of telephones will never be eliminated. I must lay down the policy. This I am now doing, and now the hon. member for Orange Grove must listen to it.

Sir, what else has been done in connection with the capital programme? The question may justifiably be asked; How have we improved our planning machinery?

I am afraid I have no more time left, but I may just briefly mention what plans have been drawn up. A Division of Planning and Finance has been created. Liaison has been effected between that Division of Planning and Finance and the Advisory Planning Council of the Government by having the Deputy Postmaster-General (Finance and Planning) serve on that Council. Reorganization has been undertaken on a regional basis. The regional director accepts regional responsibility. Regional responsibility can no longer be evaded. Where the director accepts regional responsibility, he can enlighten us. Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should very much like to say that we are aware of each of these difficulties and bottle-necks which hon. members mentioned here this afternoon.

What are you doing about them?

Just wait a moment. Sir, we are not only aware of them, we are also aware of what is being done in respect of each bottle-neck. Where it is not adequate, special steps will be taken. Special steps are, for example, under consideration in connection with the position on the Witwatersrand. These will be announced at a later stage. We are fully aware of the position. These steps which have been taken, and which I have mentioned, are the steps which the hon. member described as inadequate and unrealistic. Sir, that hon. member moved a motion here, and then did not even consider it worthwhile to discuss his own motion. I think that the motion moved by the hon. member is an unrealistic and inadequate one.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.